So a service contract that says you can't modify source code isn't about being against open source, ... It's about saying 'Hey, I want to be able to deliver to you additional value, and if I send you a patch automatically and you change the source code, it may blow up your computer.'

Look at commercial open source companies. How different is Red Hat's business model from Microsoft's? I'd say it's pretty marginal.

To us, that is a more commercially reasonable approach to the mechanism of reciprocal licensing.

As with other individuals and organizations, we too have seen the proliferation of source code licenses become problematic. We had 10+ Shared Source licenses, and as more and more product groups sought to use source code releases as a means to work with developer communities, this number was only going to rise further.

Open source is the same thing as proprietary code in that it belongs to the author, who can choose how to license it,

For those in community it's interesting. For the broader community, it's probably not that compelling, ... But for those 600 partners, it's going to let them communally develop this technology in order to serve the customer base.