I’m not sure I buy that – consider the very next FAQ:

Q: I am a developer/distributor/user of software that is licensed under the GPL, does the Community Promise apply to me?

A: Absolutely, yes. The CP applies to developers, distributors, and users of Covered Implementations without regard to the development model that created such implementations, or the type of copyright licenses under which they are distributed, or the business model of distributors/implementers. The CP provides the assurance that Microsoft will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or distribute any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including the GPL.

That is Microsoft being directly asked by a GPL developer if the CP applies to them, and Microsoft answering (strongly) in the affirmative. I just don’t think Microsoft can come behind this later and pretend the promise doesn’t apply. I really think if you consider all of the Q&A (because a single Q&A might not give a comprehensive answer) that it looks pretty good.

I’m not saying this isn’t a slight concern – even “real” Open Source entities sometimes clash over licensing issues – but I don’t think there’s enough ground here to build much on, either.

that a broad audience of developers can implement the specification(s)

That is broad enough to argue “I didn’t say so”…

nachokb

What really counts is actions, not words. OSP cannot be that unsafe; OpenOffice.org relies on it for its native OOXML support (which is being built by Sun and is unrelated to the earlier Novell work). It’s also the thing Microsoft use to cover their OASIS-based work on OpenDocument.

The MCP isn’t great; it could be better written, it could cover future versions, it could allow people to experiment with the platform incompatibly and not be at patent risk. The mandatory sections thing is a slight pain. That all said, it’s good enough.