Microsoft's anti-interoperability license has been rejected by the European Commission. (That's the same EC that's bullying through the anti-competitive patent directive.) That's good news for open source, and anyone who's looking to migrate away from the Redmond behemoth, or simply run a mixed shop with open source software and Microsoft products.
Eventually, I think the process will come up with a license that'sworkable, but the process is painfully slow. This is where Microsofthas the advantage -- they can drag their heels, propose severalunacceptable licenses, go back and forth with the commission andgenerally stall like a child avoiding bedtime. In the meantime, Microsoft works on Longhorn and new products that will require new licenses.
I wonder though -- Why is the EC allowing Microsoft to draft the license in the first place? Since this is a punishment being imposed by the EC for antitrust, why is Microsoft being allowed to draft its own license rather than the EC imposing a license on Microsoft that would force it to release the information under terms that allow other companies, and open source projects to compete? Isn't that like allowing a criminal to choose their own sentence? If you could draft the license, what provisions would you force on Microsoft?