The Proposal

Very simply: MS (or other patent holding companies) issues a blanket license for all of its patents for all  programs as distributed under the GPL (ideally or other F/OSS licenses).   But ONLY as distributed under that license.

Now note that last sentence, it's the crux and key.     What it means is that if you use the programs from a F/OSS distribution you are not beholden to MS.  But if your business is based upon developing and being first to market or building custom variants only applicable to your hardware, and you do significant development in-house without releasing that code, or your business requires local customization, then that patent license doesn't apply - if you fear your use would infringe upon MS patents it would behoove you to acquire a license to use those patents.

Linux distributors who build in house versions for testing and verification would need a separate license (I said I didn't like this!) unless they moved those operations overseas.  So would hardware makers, and a number of large companies with custom builds for various purposes.  This would MS a tidy little revenue stream, add legitimacy to their patent claims, avoid most potential lawsuits, and allow them to claim - rightfully - that they ARE working with F/OSS.

F/OSS would lose much of the FUD cloud hanging over it.  And it would give those who build internal custom versions of software large incentive to give that code back to the community to remain in compliance with the MS license grant.

There would need to be details worked out, viz, that non-commercial private developers are also licensed if their clear intent is to contribute to a F/OSS licensed project.

Likewise that internal code released for distribution within a brief amount of time is also patent licensed - in either case though, there can be little in the way of damages so almost no reason for MS to challenge such use.   In short,  the license needs to give those not gaining commercial advantage from Linux (or other F/OSS) use a way not to be subject to needing a commercial license to those patents, while requiring those that are using customized programs for advantage (even if they later release the code) to require it.

Once again, I don't like this.  But we need to address the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

Also I have no reason to think MS would consider such a proposal.   It's quite possible that their corporate mindset is so inimical to F/OSS that they'd dismiss this idea without a second thought.

But here it is.   I'll don the asbestos suit and wait for comments.