Let's face it. Microsoft would kill all free and open source software if it could. But it can't. So it's pretending to like it (even to the point of hiring "open source ambassadors"). It's biding its time until it can gain enough influence on FOSS to either kill or co-opt it into something it can exploit to forward its own aim: maximising shareholder value. Think I'm wrong?
Microsoft, like any such corporation having thousands of employees should, according to probabilistic circumstances, contain some who are honest and have good values and manage to reach decently high in the hierarchy until they realize they're not working in the place of their dreams. These people have 3 options: ...2/3
1. reveal truths to the public and get fired
2. share their values with their boss or coworkers and probably get fired
3. be more subtle by hiding their values under arguments their boss will like so their ideas can be applied in the end.
as history shows, none of these give truly positive results but they can limit damage.
@ChameleonScales 2/2/ a few people who sincerely advocate for #OSS, but there's a disconnect: these people aren't principled #FOSS advocates (the ones I've dealt with, in any case) they just like the #OSS model. They're picking the safe route that doesn't conflict with MSFT's almost exclusively proprietary software output.
@ChameleonScales and a 3/2 :) - I think MSFT is trying to redefine "OSS" to mean weak FOSS licenses only, excluding copyleft licenses (traditionally copyleft is included under the term OSS). It's MSFT's tried and true EmbraceExtentendExtinguish playbook all over again. I'm not the only one who sees this...