I saw Scoble's post referring to Bill Crow's information on the new Microsoft graphics/photo format and looked at the post on licensing. Regardless of the efficacy of the format the licensing strategy is oppressive and rooted in the past:
"Our stated goal has always been to provide licensing terms that encourage (or at a bare minimum, certainly don't inhibit) broad cross-platform adoption of the file format. The licensing terms are designed to strike a balance between protecting Microsoft's intellectual property (which also helps us provide important insurances to our licensees) and eliminating barriers to adoption."
The "stated" goal hmm-- the real goal is to try to tie users to Microsoft so that they will have to follow Microsoft wherever they go. This is definitely not in the spirit of openness or transparency. Microsoft has a history of creating, buying graphics editing programs and creating proprietary formats only to abandon them later and leave users and adopters high and dry. I am guessing there will be no difference here-- they will change and modify and maybe even abandon the format at their whim in the future leaving past users and licensees high and dry. The terms seem to indicate that non-Microsoft platform uses will incur a fee (perhaps at Microsoft's whim?) effectively eliminating or at least allowing Microsoft complete control over most open source usage.
In the area of graphics development Microsoft has rightfully earned our distrust and deserves to be massively booed for this current effort.
I am not an open source bigot. There are plenty of things wrong with both open source software and the philosophies and strategies for development. I like Microsoft products and generally I think the price is worth it, but I just don't trust Microsoft in this area. The Machiavellian licensing strategy, clearly trying to eliminate open source products from using the format is evidence that Microsoft is still hoping for a return to the glory days of the 20th century.
