I think that the Microsoft steps are exactly in line with the momentum of the OSS movement. Yes, there are people who have a vision of all software being freely available. They have already achieved some level of that, which is good. I can now choose to use quality free software as opposed to doing without or resorting to piracy. This benefits everyone because people can learn technological thinking to solve problems even if they don't have a lot of money to invest in technology. As their thinking and needs evolve they may go beyond what open source provides... they might not. In either case we get a larger audience for technological solutions. That's good.

It will never be totalitarian. Free markets say that there will always be the potential for sellers and buyers. People will continue to pay for newer technologies, convenience and anything else that they feel is worth paying for.

The Microsoft announcement seems to indicate that the OSS path has succeeded. There was a time when the approach would have been "Our way or the highway." Whether this was calculated or innocent is debated elsewhere. The point is that the Open Source and Open API approaches have created an environment where technology has become somewhat independent of the application developer. People are orchestrating these functions in ways that makes sense to them. Some do it completely naive of the way that such things are supposed to work and create something wonderful. They are choosing based on what works for them.

The technologies that embrace this openness tend to support more platforms and standards. That seems good as well. More choice, more integration, more interractivity all remove obstacles for people to use technology to solve problems. People who have top-dollar commercial answers and people who have community answers will get closer to being able to share. Commercial companies benefit by being able to reduce investment in commodities and increase investment in the specialized or mission-critical areas. The community benefits because as ideas become more mainstream they become more easily available.

If Microsoft is recognizing that there is benefit to this approach and by being more open they keep themselves in the game and get the opportunity to make money with everyone out there, rather than only the ones who adopt their methodology in its entirety. This probably does not mean that Microsoft is about to die. It probably means the exact opposite. Microsoft may be developing a sense of true statesmanship that will allow it to get along in the evolving landscape where the world is not commercial OR open but both.

Likewise my statements are my own and do not reflect the opinions of IBM nor its strategies.

Oh come on! Microsoft has _never_ made a step where it didn't translate into $ for them in some way - or quash the competition. Microsoft's words have become so unreliable that taking them at face value is an exercise in culpability. See the following from Sam Hiser under another heading.
No reason for optimism here, Zack. You totally missed Reason #1 (the EU actions from Opera & ECIS are Reason #2) for the big PR stunt: it's Ballot Resolution Meeting week this coming in Geneva for Microsoft's OOXML format.

The best question -- unasked -- is why is that format's ISO ratification so critical to Microsoft (we know they are not threatened by ODF)?

The answer is because M is setting up -- in the instance of a win in "The Battle of Geneva" -- for "Browser World War II". That OOXML file format, if anyone looks at the Fixed&Flow Document ideas in the Office 2007 SDK, is the Microsoft's answer to Web 2.0. And ISO ratification is a free pass.

Note this about the API news: These are API's that Microsoft needs to have open in order to survive. Opening them is not news. Furthermore, we have made the point for years that a Universal Document Format must be the locus of interoperability; Microsoft has merely reasserted its same old, same old, same old, same old plan to force interop at the APPLICATION level. This is interoperability on Microsoft's terms -- not on open standard terms.

It is an insignificant gesture, altogether, and should give national bodies voting again next week in Geneva pause to consider changing 'Yes' votes to 'No' and holding all 'No' votes at 'No'.

The OOXML format -- even if it were actually deployed in the Office 2007 application -- is not a de jure standard and shall never be, no matter what hollow promises Microsoft makes at the application level.