Openness of a platform and openness of a software are not the same. You can run a MediaWiki site with closed membership, for example. When the code for a device is open source, then third parties are more likely to be able to develop features for it without the device manufacturers' permission, making the device/platform more open. But still, with things like firmware update, the openess could be compromised.

Installation and GUI were said to be the biggest hurdles for wider Linux adoption. Now drivers? I think it is not about drivers. It is probably about branding and brand awareness. People would be worried about an OS that they have never heard of.

I don't get this either..(see comments to the article).

Open AIM 2.0, eXtensible Messaging and Presence Protocol, Pidgin

"AOL's publication of its own internal OSCAR documentation at this point is mostly just a token gesture."

"The Open AIM 2.0 initiative is a good start, but it doesn't do enough to empower third-party developers who will likely continue to use alternate implementations in order to avoid AOL's restrictions."

The openness is good if it means any change in protocol would be documented openly in the future. That will make third party developers' job easier. Developer kit license is rather tricky, not quite a typical open strategy as I see it. The ban on GPL is blatantly anti-open, indeed.

Interesting turn of event.