Colour me very, very sceptical. Microsoft does not have a history of being honest about anything, from secret APIs to dishonest dealings with "partners". I can only wonder what hidden traps they'll have in their definition of "open source", or their implementation of the "open source" version.
Yup. That said, the comments here seem to be divided between MS shills and those who seem to be bad at history, and who are consequently doomed to repeat it. I would avoid creating any corporate dependency on Microsoft code unless you're planning to flog or float your business soon - it's not good long term planning if you want to keep your IT costs down.
I think this may originate in reality in the UK. Current UK government has thrown out the Microsofties that the previous administration allowed to infest everything, so they now need a different set of clothes to show that they're oh-so-supportive of "open" or totally be out on their ear as Cabinet Office appears to be using People With A Clue™ (come to think of it, I may met a few in Brussels a few weeks ago).
Microsoft have been "nice" with bad consequences far too often. Trust must be earned, and they have a *lot* of catching up to do.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
