I listened to Stephe's fantastic talk at a COSS.fi last month, and am glad he just posted a thoughtful piece detailing his ideas. In a way, it's similar to Martin Fink's analysis of a few years ago as to what you can afford to open source (complements) and what you need to keep closed (core). I don't buy Fink's argument, but think Stephe's nuances are much more compelling. For instance, just why does Microsoft n I listened to Stephe’s fantastic talk at a COSS.fi last month, and am glad he just posted a thoughtful piece detailing his ideas. In a way, it’s similar to Martin Fink’s analysis of a few years ago as to what you can afford to open source (complements) and what you need to keep closed (core). I don’t buy Fink’s argument, but think Stephe’s nuances are much more compelling.For instance, just why does Microsoft need to keep its products closed? But this is also why I maintain that Microsoft could now publish most of their software using open source licenses to advantage — including Windows and Office (were it legally possible). Their core competency today is actually tied up in the capital (human knowledge and physical) and processes that enable the Windows and Office distros and support to be delivered through the global channel, and no longer in the source code base itself. Microsoft could use open source communities to re-invigorate the franchises.Sometimes we miss the ball on this. We get so caught up in our past that we can’t see our future. I think this may be happening at Microsoft. Open Source