James Dixon’s Blog

James Dixon’s thoughts on commercial open source and open source business intelligence

Microsoft’s Open Source Strategy – I Think

with 14 comments

Maybe this isn’t news to anyone but I think I finally understand Microsoft’s strategy when it comes to open source. If I’m right, I’m quite impressed (with them, not me). The net of this is that Microsoft would like you to (in order of preference):

  1. Pay for and use Microsoft software
  2. Use open source software and have a Microsoft licensing agreement (e.g. Linux under the Novell deal)
  3. Use open source software that violates Microsoft patents so they can force you to make license payments (e.g. TomTom)
  4. Use their competitor’s software
  5. Use open source that does not violate their patents

For #4 and #5, I think they would prefer you pay for competitor software than use unencumbered open source because you are still in the world of vendor lock-in, where traditional marketing and sales tactics are effective. If you are using unencumbered open source software you are below their radar and you are difficult for them to reach.

I patched this together from these isolated facts and incidents:

Halloween Emails – 1998

In 1998 a series of internal emails were leaked from Microsoft (the Halloween emails). It is clear from these emails that Microsoft understood how open source worked, that it was a threat, and that attempts to market against it were counter-productive. In the next few years Microsoft does little or nothing to fight against open source.

Source – The Halloween Documents (Eric Raymond, catb.org)

Lack of Patents < 2001

Microsoft did not make a lot of patent applications prior to 2001. It ended up making a lot of payments to other software companies to resolve IP claims because of this. Bill Gates resolves to remedy this.

Source: Gates wants patent power (Ina Fried, CNET)

Strategy Revealed – 2002

From an internal memo at HP:

“Basically, Microsoft is going to use the legal system to shut down open-source software. Microsoft could attack open-source software for patent infringements against (computer makers), Linux distributors, and, least likely, open-source developers,” Gary Campbell, vice president of strategic architecture.

At that time the open source projects specifically mentioned were: Samba, Apache HTTP, and Sendmail.

Source – HP memo: Microsoft planned open-source patent fight (Stephen Shankland, CNET)

Cross Licensing Initiative – 2004

In order to meet its patent portfolio goals Microsoft embarks on a cross-licensing initiative.

“If we are able to strike cross-licensing deals with the top 30 technology companies, that alone would provide us access to a vast majority of the patents in areas we care about”, David Kaefer, Microsoft’s director of intellectual property licensing.

This was done to protect Microsoft from IP claims made against it by proprietary companies, but it plays into their open source strategy.

Source – Microsoft–License To Deal (Ina Fried, CNET)

Microsoft Shared Source – 2005

Around 2005 Microsoft started to make some of it’s source code available under a ‘shared source’ program. Jason Matusow (director of the program) claimed this was to try to replicate the advantages of open source. It sounds good but under this program you are allowed to view their source, but you are not allowed to use the source. This text is from Microsoft’s Developer Center is rather ominous:

You are warned that when you build a run-time image based on an OS design that contains shared source code, your run-time image might contain private code that cannot be released in a product under the terms of the Microsoft EULA

So by making their source code available they make it very tempting for developers to use it as a source of code samples. But doing so leaves you open to legal problems that are best resolved by making license payments to Microsoft.

Codeplex – 2006

In order to encourage developers to inadvertently full into the shared source trap, Microsoft launches Codeplex.

Source – Microsoft to Launch Code-Sharing Site (Martin LaMonica, CNET)

Microsoft Novell Partnership – 2006

This agreement is particularly interesting. The deal protects Novell’s customers from legal action by Microsoft for any IP infringements that exist in Linux. Effectively Novell customers are pay Microsoft (through Novell) for the right to use software that includes functionality covered by Microsoft’s patents.

Source – Microsoft Statement on Novell Agreement (Microsoft.com)

The Linux Attack – 2007

Microsoft claims that Linux violates 235 of its patents. However Microsoft won’t reveal which of it’s thousands of patents at the problematic ones.

Many open source participants ask Microsoft for the list, saying that they will re-write the offending code so that the violate is removed. They miss the point. Microsoft wants the violations to remain in place. Microsoft wants users of Linux to pay a license fee to Microsoft to cover the use of their patents. That is, everyone except Novell’s customers, who have pre-paid for that same license (they pay Novell, Novell pays Microsoft).

Source – Microsoft Takes on the Free World (Roger Parloff, Fortune)

The TomTom Takedown – 2009

The recent TomTom case is a good example of the patent attack. Microsoft revealed two of its patent cards – #5,579,517 and #5,758,352 around the FAT filesystem – and slapped it on TomTom for using a Linux distribution that includes FAT-based code. The result of this case is that TomTom now pays license fees to Microsoft for the use of that code.

Source – Microsoft and TomTom settle patent dispute (Ryan Paul, ars technica)

So now we know 2 of Microsoft’s alleged 235 Linux-related patents. Now that Microsoft has revealed these patent cards it would clearly be in the interests of the open source movement for all the code that could violate the FAT patents to be removed or re-written in such a way as to avoid the IP issue (if possible). Long-time open source advocate Larry Augustin takes this position also.

Source – Linux, Microsoft and Patents: It’s Time to Get the FAT Out (Larry Augustin’s Weblog)


Since identifying open source as a threat 10 years ago Microsoft has consistently done two things: increased its patent portfolio, and gained revenue from licensing that portfolio to others.

Microsoft has  clearly decided that it cannot directly fight or defeat open source. But it can further increase license revenue by attacking users of open source with claims of IP infringement.

Individual open source developers are too small to target with attacks such as this. But any large company using open source internally or in a product or service should be concerned by this. The open source movement as a whole needs to pay attention to IP issues.

There are many people in the open source movement who hold a “we don’t believe in intellectual property” stance. They may, one day, find themselves sending a monthly payment to Microsoft for privilege of continuing to hold that belief.


Written by James

April 21, 2009 at 3:52 pm

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This blog’s where its happenning. Keep up the good work.


    April 21, 2009 at 7:59 pm

  2. Love this blog I’ll be back when I have more time.


    April 22, 2009 at 8:52 am

  3. […] James Dixon provided his interpretation of Microsoft’s strategy towards open […]

  4. […] has just published a very good summary of Microsoft’s attitude towards Free/open source software over the years. It’s a recommended read and it’s concluded as follows: Since identifying open source […]

  5. […] Microsoft's Open Source Strategy – I Think « James Dixon's Blog internet advertising […]

  6. Great post. All your post very important. I like content about open source, i need it. Thanks.

    Open Source Release

    May 8, 2009 at 1:50 pm

  7. […] You can read my full take on Microsoft’s strategy in this post – Microsoft’s open source strategy […]

  8. I think the acceptance that Microsoft has changed combined with the persisting, healthy suspicion the company is actually trying to hurt open source in the end shows a couple of things. First, Microsoft is indeed a very large company itself, and this means not only mixed messages, but mixed strategies as well. Second, I think the real change is that Microsoft is now contributing to the legitimacy of open source software by forging long-term deals and projects (Novell AND Red Hat and many others). At the same time, it is true that Microsoft is continuing an aggressive patent and IP-licensing business that does at times involve Linux and open source. However, I think Microsoft’s licensing strategy is more about leveraging its IP wherever it can. If it can do so while avoiding attacks on open source software projects and vendors, I believe it will.



    May 20, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    • Hi Jay,

      These are good points. I agree that Microsoft is leveraging is IP wherever it can. My point is that when it comes to competing with open source, leveraging its IP is the only tactic Microsoft can use.

      I don’t think Microsoft is trying to ‘hurt’ open source. I think they are trying to find ways to get open source users to pay license fees to Microsoft (by asserting IP violations). That way Microsoft gets paid either way – revenue goes up but sales/marketing expenses stay the same.

      I don’t see is any indication that Microsoft is changing that strategy. So I expect that we will see more IP-based legal cases against the users of open source.



      May 20, 2009 at 3:08 pm

      • Bullshit. Microsoft is doing nothing new. In another 5-10 years we’ll see the real purpose to CodePlex.

        They have way too long a history of this sort of thing for me to believe CodePlex is anything but a trap for the gullible FOSS developer.

        And crap like this, Mono, and the fake “community promise” they made are examples of ways Microsoft is giving Micropologists enough of a warm fuzzy feeling without actually contributing to FOSS on our terms instead of theirs.

        Did you know CodePlex doesn’t allow GPLv3 licenses? I wonder why.

        No, I think most developers would be better off keeping their code as far away from CodePlex as possible if they really want to keep their project and code safe from Microsoft.

        Microsoft has too long a history for me to blindly trust CodePlex, though I just know Micropologists will because they’ll believe all the PR bullshit Microsoft cranks out where they pretend they’re being friendly to FOSS. They’re not. The Halloween Documents are just as relevant now as they were 11 years ago. Just because Microsoft is pretending to be friendly to FOSS doesn’t make it so.

        Three things will convince me Microsoft is genuinely interested in actually contributing to FOSS:

        1. They need to devlop on a license NOT CREATED BY THEM, and NOT IN A CASE WHERE THEY GOT BUSTED VIOLATING THE LICENSE. So far, they have no met this criterea. (Shared source is a crock, OSI approval notwithstandiong. And the ONLY reason Microsoft GPL’d and released the source code of their virtualization drivers was because someone actually caught them in the act of violating the GPL.)

        2. They gotta open something REAL. Not small crap projects they see aren’t working out or have no real interest in pursuing, but something genuinely successful of theirs: Windows, Office, Visual Studio, or Internet Explorer. And under one of OUR licenses, not one of THEIRS. Too easy for them to exploit their own loopholes.

        3. They have to maintain criteria 1 and 2 BOTH for at least 5 years, preferably a decade. That way I know they’re doing it for real.

        Don’t feed me Micropologist bullshit, either. Microsoft’s history is littered with too many dishonest and sleazy tactics LIKE THIS for me to think CodePlex is safe. Criteria 1-3 is the only way to prove that they actually turned a new leaf, which, judging by the latest FUD campaign launched against Linux and aimed toward Best Buy employees, not bloody likely to be the case.


        September 11, 2009 at 4:19 am

  9. You mis-understand CodePlex, there isn’t any “trap” to it, it’s a community of Microsoft platform developers who are involved in open source projects. Microsoft wants both #1 and #5, they aren’t mutually exclusive. There is a ton of great open source software that runs on .NET and Windows.

    Jonathan Wanagel

    May 21, 2009 at 9:17 am

    • The trap is not the genuine open source projects on codeplex, those are fine. the trap exists with the ‘shared source’ that Microsoft has made available – you are allowed to see the source, but you are not allowed to use the source.


      May 21, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    • It’s a trap and any sensible FOSS developer who knows even half of Microsoft’s long history of this sort of crap can see it.

      Seriously, how thick can you be? Or are you willfully ignoring over 30 years of sleazy “embrace, extend, extinguish” tactics exactly like this? Microsoft is not acting any differently then they were 15 years ago towards threats to their monopoly in those days. Touchy feely bullshit like the “community promise” do not wash away 30 years of dishonest slime, and no one except the Micropologists are falling for it.

      No SERIOUS FOSS developer with a successful FOSS project will even think about risking their code on CodePlex. I bet Miguel de Icaza is already transferring all his projects to CodePlex since that moron is a Microsoft fanboy.


      September 11, 2009 at 4:25 am

  10. Guess you’ve never heard of WiX then James? http://wix.sourceforge.net/

    Curiously I came across this page by typing “why open source software is bullshit” into Google as a couple of weeks struggling to get something compiling which is supposed to be cross-platform open source for the last 8 years & still with no resolution in sight. Never had this problem with proprietary software but there are enough straw man arguments on this blog already 😉

    Malibu Stacey

    April 26, 2010 at 4:48 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: