A conversation between two IT management types displayed a definite mistrust of Microsoft's sales reps during a re-licensing negotiation. Yet we're supposed to trust a cmpany with a long history of dishonest behavior and a hostile attitude toward the FOSS community with the OSI stamp of approval?

I was privy to a conversation between two IT management types the other day at their local office. Their discussion involved a pending re-licensing deal in which they both expressed mistrust for the Microsoft sales reps involved. That's really not news, but consider that Microsoft wants us to trust them with a "FOSS-friendly" OSI stamp of approval. Ah, there's that word again - trust!

The conversation went back and forth in the usual manner, with the two people discussing their general situations, having to coordinate to meet their respective needs and so on. But a couple of things really perked up my ears. First, the Microsoft sales reps apparently had the notion they were onto a sizable re-licensing deal - much bigger than the reality. They then, according to the one person, claimed that Microsoft's licensing is so complex even they can't keep it straight. Then it got really interesting. That person did not believe the sales rep.

Both parties explicitly stated their belief that Microsoft's sales people were attempting to oversell the company - intentionally. Not only does this harken back to the high-pressure license audit as sales tactic approach that drew heated criticism for Microsoft, it just goes to show that not much has changed. What Microsoft fails to grasp is that many in the Free Software community vehemently oppose Microsoft, more for its low-down, dirty, rotten business tactics than for its non-libre distribution model. And this is hardly the only company this kind of sales tactic is used with.

Unfortunately, this company is so heavily invested in Microsoft software, it would be extremely costly to migrate away. So they feel compelled to continue running on the upgrade treadmill, come what may. The great irony is that this company has sales reps of its own, several of whom have revealed they refuse to engage in high-pressure tactics like Microsoft does. So here is a company that seems to garner some level of trust among its customers, yet their OS vendor seems unwilling to give it the same level of respect.

I mentioned that Microsoft wants the FOSS-friendly stamp of approval from OSI. I do think Microsoft should seek that certification. That's definitely a good thing. The problem is that they continue to engage in dishonest business practices and tactics and don't deserve such a stamp of approval. I'm not sayin that everyone who has received OSI's stamp of approval deserves it - I feel that organization has been very relaxed in approving licenses. But Microsoft has a long history of attacking the FOSS community.

Starting with Ballmer's most recent mouth-in-foot incident, he accused his own customers of having a liability on their balance sheets, but is apparently too cowardly to help the FOSS community rectify any potential patent infringement issues. Don't you get it? They don't want to resolve the problem. The problem is their golden goose! As long as they can claim Linux, or other parts of GNU/Linux systems infringe on Microsoft patents, they can continue overcharging, overselling and 'auditing' their customers.

The customers play a role all their own. Many customers are either too afraid of a potential infringement to move away, or are locked-in because they bought the whole unified solutions panacea, hook, line and sinker. The only way out is a long, winding trail through Open Standards to Libreville. But companies can either choose to continue being brow-beaten and bullied into licensing contracts, or they can do something about it, and start insisting that Microsoft's representatives conduct themselves in a trustworthy manner.

I recently explained that I migrated from Microsoft because I disliked the licensing and technical issues I faced when using their software. I was applauded for having done something to solve the problem. I, too, applaud people who act to solve their problems. And the most important problem is that Microsoft's tactics need to change. The truth is, only customers can change Microsoft's behavior. They simply won't respond any other way.

Yet, this same company - the one that demonstrates it cannot be trusted in a simple license negotiation, that threatens national economies when it gets hauled into court, that accuses its own customers of legal liabilities without trying to resolve those alleged liabilities - wants the Open Source Initiative to give it the stamp of approval as an 'open source' vendor. Icannot speak for the OSI. I'll just say it would only be possible over my dead body.