"As CodePlex continues to gain in popularity, I expect we'll see the MS-PL push past MPL and potentially even past the MIT License, which currently ranks seventh at 3.79 percent share. When that happens, it will be a sign that Microsoft has truly arrived as an open-source player." Not to pick on Matt Asay, but no, open source developers using a license that your lawyer has written in no sense means you have arrived as an open source player. After all, I suspect that Matt would be the first person to assert that all the people who are using the GPL are not in open source because they share the world view of the GNU project.
Interesting comments on Matt Asay's article. Not sure I can agree that Google are the "ultimate open source company". In my world view, the "ultimate open source company" would actually open source its core product.
The bootnote is way more interesting than the article. But I am pleased that Microsoft would see a license it wrote being widely adopted once it has been OSI-certified. I remember Jason Mattusow announcing these licenses in 2005 with no hint of OSI-involvement. This situation is greatly preferable. AFAIK, licenses are not competing, but philosophies might be. The rise of th GPLv3 and the AGPL is really interesting – and what will this mean for Google's ability to compete in 5 years' time?
I call this blindingly obvious. For all the weasel words from the music industry and Hollywood, file sharing is actually harming the ability of a small group of obscenely rich people to make even more money, harming a business that promotes soulless mediocrity and is more concered with investment projects than meaningful works of art.
Of course good artists study art, good writers read, good musicians listen to music – as much as possible.