The timing of this was particularly unfortunate for Microsoft's Open Source Software Lab, which is sponsoring an ISV event this coming Monday, ahead of OSBC in San Francisco. For those of you unfamiliar with this group, they focus on helping open source middleware and application ISV's run on Windows, as well as interoperate with other Microsoft products. This is in response to many customers wanting to run open source applications on Windows environments- and Microsoft doesn't want to lose Windows customers just because these apps don't run well on Windows. The OSSL group is launching a more formal ISV program, with this Monday's event being a kickoff of sorts, with many open source ISV's invited. (SpikeSource is also invited, hence I am attending.)

I've had positive interactions with that group, notably Sam Ramji, and believe their goal, at face value, is a good one. With some 30-50% of open source application customers worldwide running on Windows (depending on the application in question), it makes sense for OSS app vendors to better serve this market and to participate in such a program. Simultaneously it makes sense for Microsoft to have such a program (it helps them defend Windows market share). A good example of straightforward co-opetition. Unfortunately, not everybody at Microsoft may recognize this goal. So, I can imagine the "cut off at the knees" feeling that Sam and company must have felt when the Fortune article got written, quoting people higher in the Microsoft corporate food chain. Indeed, there were calls to boycott this upcoming event. On the lighter side, Fabrizio Capobianco, CEO of Funambol, suggested a more sartorial approach to expressing disdain.

It's been hard for me not to get distracted. Indeed, multiple members of the OSA have suggested that the OSA "take a stand" and encourage a boycott, and multiple media and influential bloggers asked about the OSA's "position".

The OSA's "position" on such issues will always be based on what is best for customers looking to adopt open solutions. We were founded with this principle in mind, and our goals and activities will always take on this pragmatic goal. Publicly, we stated no position, as we saw this as a licensing and patent law issue that is orthogonal to our focus as an organization. The OSA doesn't own any IP, nor have we licensed any code. Privately, I counseled several members against boycotting. It's a noble sentiment, but it would be counter-productive to their business. "You were initially drawn to this event because you have customers that want to run your app on Windows. Has that changed? You should attend and hear them out. At the very least, you'll get more information with which to make an educated decision on how to serve these customers. If we don't like what we hear, we can leave anytime." All agreed.

Today, Sam and Bill Hilf (who runs this group) posted a clarification on their blog, stating that the Fortune article was inaccurate, and Microsoft's strategy hasn't changed at all. "Licensing not litigation" and build an "IP Bridge" to open source. I guess we need not be very afraid after all.

Nonetheless, how does this strategy lead to customer value? I'm sure most open source companies aren't willfully, intentionally infringing patents, and would be willing to work around them, or with the owners of those patents in a spirit of openness and collaboration. Nothing prevents Microsoft to point out areas of infringement and work in good faith with alleged infringers to resolve it. Doing so would be a much more straightforward way for Microsoft to resolve such issues. Fix the problem, then get back to the business of serving customers. But this business of "don't worry about which patents, let's instead build a licensing bridge" (i.e. "pay us money and there won't be a problem") just ends up gumming up the works. It adds cost to an open source business's operations on an ongoing basis, and this takes resources away from building better products. These costs adversely affect customers, either directly (some vendors will just pass costs along to their customers) or indirectly (with products not being as rich as they otherwise could be). So, the question I will ask this Monday, is how is Microsoft helping us deliver customer value? Better developer support for Windows interoperability is a good thing, but if part of the deal is to agree (either explicitly or tacitly) to this kind of "bridge", it's hard to see how it adds up to more customer value.

Ultimately only one thing will help all of us, including Microsoft, make more money- Delivering customer value. And, as mentioned yesterday in this blog, we believe that the best way of doing this is in an open and collaborative fashion. This behavior of assembling a list of patents and offering deals to "make the problem go away", instead of working openly to fix whatever problems that exist, seems anathema to this spirit of open collaboration.

So, how will Microsoft, and this ISV program, help deliver greater customer value? I won't be wearing any cool T-shirts (other than my company shirt), but I will be asking this question.