Microsoft's text goes well beyond what you say. For instance it categorically forbids the use of a lot of open source tools in developing software. The following would therefore not be allowed:

1. Using Emacs to edit your source-code.
2. Using Perl scripts for automated testing.
3. Keeping your source-code in CVS.

This goes well beyond a restatement of the conditions of the GPL.

Also the inclusion of Perl goes beyond the Artistic license. Perl's license very specifically allows you to embed a Perl interpreter and use it internally in any way you like. Beyond a requirement to not expose any public interfaces associated with the embedded interpreter, there are no obligations of any kind. Yet this specific action is forbidden by Microsoft.

As for my comment about Microsoft fearing free software, have you kept track of their recent FUD campaign against open source (really the GPL, but they called it open source)? Their strongly stated position there is that companies cannot safely use open source software in any way without running serious risk of losing all of their intellectual property. This is, of course, a serious overstatement of the viral nature of the GPL and ignores the laxer requirements of many other licenses. That they want customers to believe this is a matter of public record, as anyone following current IT news knows.

You will note that this desired belief oversteps the potential risk of open source software in exactly the same way that their license requires customers to overreact. Overreactions which in no way, shape, or form actually match the content of the open source licenses. Coincidence?

BTW for future reference, I try to only take positions that I believe. The fact that I do not like Microsoft does not mean that every anti-Microsoft thing I see I will agree with. I try to form an informed opinion each and every item. See for instance my defence above of their very extreme conditions for, "We have no liability for any damage above $5!" When I first saw that, you can bet my knee-jerk reaction was bad. But when I looked at the situation as a whole, it did seem reasonable that Microsoft should have no liability if you use a beta software development library to try and create production software.

Had a closer reading of their open source terms had any justification that I could see, I would not have objected. For instance I would defend them had they said, Software developed with this kit incorporates components that are Microsoft's property, and therefore you cannot use this development suite to develop open source software. However depending on the specifics of the license, you may be able to create proprietary derivatives. But they said something very different from that, and I object to the significant differences.