InformationWeek: So how do you address the "distinction between popular perception and the reactions of leaders of open source communities," as Sam put it? How do you go about changing the minds of those who think Microsoft will always be about 'embrace, extend, extinguish'?

Robertson: Changing perceptions of Microsoft requires being clear as to what we are trying to achieve and how we are going about it, and then delivering results. We have stepped up our activities over the past few years on interoperability and with the Interoperability Principles are taking an even bolder approach. We appreciate that there are skeptics, and know that delivering what we have set out to do is the best way to change minds.

InformationWeek: I'd like to give Microsoft a chance to respond to something an IBM exec told me: "Microsoft never seems to talk about how people can use Microsoft's protocols and formats to connect arbitrary software together, it's always about using the protocols and formats to talk to Microsoft products. To be more believable about being open, they'll have to transcend this both linguistically as well as in practice." This IBM exec said that Microsoft is really talking about "intraoperability," not interoperability.

Robertson: The steps we're taking will promote interoperability across the board. We've heard from the community that their primary interest is in ensuring that they have the ability to interoperate with popular Microsoft products in the same way that other Microsoft products do. We're addressing that interest through the Interoperability Principles. But we are doing more. We're providing free access to information about how we work with protocols, formats and standards that may help guide how others address similar challenges. We're working through the Document Interoperability Initiative to achieve interoperability between implementations of popular document formats, and we'll work with other major implementers of the standards we support in our high volume products to achieve interoperability between our respective implementations.

InformationWeek: Does Microsoft need to make its specs explicitly usable with the GPL? Why or why not?

Robertson: We think that our Open Specification Promise is consistent with how others have addressed the royalty free use of patents needed to implement specifications, including IBM. It should give all developers the comfort they want to work with covered specifications.

With respect to the compatibility with the GPL, as far as we're concerned we are happy that the OSP applies to implementers who distribute their code under any copyright license including the GPL. The GPL is a copyright license that is drafted in a way that leaves many issues, not just those related to patent rights, open to many interpretations. Any particular user or implementer should read the GPL carefully and make their own judgment about what it means and requires in accordance with their own circumstances.