I don't buy it. The issue isn't that Open Source would be disruptive to Microsoft's revenue stream, but rather that it's incompatible with their business model. It's not about licensing fees, but control.

Microsoft's business has been built about leveraging their exlusive access to APIs and data formats into other market areas. I think Microsoft may be willing to give away their OS for free (as in beer, not speech) before they would expose the proprietary interfaces of the system.

If Microsoft decided to do the Open Source thing, it would be because their business model has changed, and at least some of its software products (and the relevant APIs) are no longer relevant. To me it's not that much of a stretch, but we'll see...

Shared source is really an amazing subversion of the open-source concept, because if you are a programmer working at a company with a shared-source license, and you glimpse any of their code, MS could, in effect, own your brain from that day on. Any code you wrote from that point on could be scrutinized to make sure you weren't stealing any of the code you saw. I don't consider shared-source an alternative to the binary open/closed source.

Yeah, shared source is just another manifestation of Microsoft's preta business model. (Preta = hungry ghost, all appetite.)

Yup, fits right in with my point, that Microsoft is all about control.

From my viewpoint, Shared Source is a farce because it precludes all the things that make Open Source so beneficial (modify, use, share).

Shared Source is so totally in line with the Microsoft paradigm, because it exerts extraordinary control over those who receive it. It's really quite subversive.