Can't open-source and Microsoft just get along?

We interrupt the regularly-scheduled Microhoo update to bring you the story of an obscure software vendor that seems to be proving that open-source and Windows are not like oil and water after all.

Remember Aras Corp.? Made a splash last January when it announced that it would make its software totally open-source but keep them on Windows-only, as well as use Microsoft's then-uncertified open-source licenses to distribute the source code.

The company took a fair amount of heat for its heretical approach to open-source. Critics derided Aras for its allegedly opportunistic, business-first approach and the lack of respect for the values of a movement that had moved from the academic fringe into the server rooms of the Fortune 500. I cited Aras in an article last year where I posed the question, "Has open-source lost its halo?"

Our columnist Frank Hayes, whose grasp of historical detail is stronger than mine, argued that open-source was created explicitly as a business-friendly alternative to the free software movement. He is no doubt right, yet I think many open-sourcers still see their values as differing fundamentally - and are better - from those engaged in the mainstream software business. Just read the comments to any article about open-source posted at Slashdot.

We are at a Groveian-style inflection point where open-source has become accepted, but if it wants to become truly mainstream, it has to, as the politicians say, open up the big tent and not alienate those on the fence.

That probably means accepting somewhat-awkward hybrids such as Aras, not fussing when firms such as Sun/MySQL try to reserve certain database features as proprietary and charge for them, and giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt as it tries to adapt.