Over the past year, Microsoft has leveraged various flavors of "open source strategies": July 2006 Microsoft Expands Document Interoperability, September 2006 Microsoft Open Specification Promise, November 2006 Microsoft and Novell Collaboration Announcement.

Now, Microsoft announces it will open source some parts of its new Silverlight web application technology. There may be several reasons for this move. Microsoft did not build Silverlight on existing graphics standards, which may deter diffusion and adoption. Having some parts of Silverlight open source will draw support among firms, as well as developers that are usually shunned from tinkering with Microsoft technologies. Already, the ability to modify the Microsoft technology has caused one open source project to be set aside.

Yet Silverlight raises several intriquing questions: how does Silverlight differ from technologies in which Microsoft does not leverage open source strategies, is Microsoft merely matching Adobe move for move so that it does not fall behind in a market where Adobe is more experienced, is having some parts of Silverlight open source merely a gratuitous grab for PR, would Microsoft use an open source approach if Adobe did not, why does Microsoft not use a standard open source license, do the Kantian moralists in the community wonder about Microsoft's motivations?

My intuition is that Microsoft is playing a clever game, but I won't complain. Afterall, there is only really good art and really bad art, and in the world of business maneuvering, few can beat Microsoft. The company's previous relations with the FOSS community may complicate its business adoptions of open source strategies, but Redmond will quickly master this new competitive environment.