Some readers think I'm anti-Microsoft. Since I cover open source, I admit to a rooting interest in the subject, just as if I covered Atlanta I'd take a rooting interest in my city.
Still, I want to be fair, and when I criticized Microsoft for not submitting their new licenses to OSI, Russ Nelson was ready.
Microsoft is not hostile to the idea of submitting the licenses.
Their main goal right now is to bring the benefits of open source to their own development community. Microsoft believes that this community and the wider open source community don't overlap very much. They may be right, and they may be wrong. More to the point, however, is that
Microsoft is implicitly agreeing with us that a certain set of freedoms allows creators and users of code to collaborate more closely to produce higher quality software. Freedom good! Collaboration good! Higher quality good!
When I pointed out that Microsoft had recently made an alliance with JBoss, Russ took that as evidence of his point:
IMHO, there is a HUGE amount of software which Microsoft could beneficially publish as open source without harming their core. They're not our enemies.
I still don't know. If you think your licenses are OSI-compliant, why not submit them? Isn't license simplicity a worthwhile goal, too? Can someone, inside or outside Microsoft, tell me what's so bad about the OSI?