Hands down, Microsoft's shared source license is a reasonable attempt to embrace the good features of OSS.  

NOTE: I understand that Microsoft has 8+ different shared source licenses that it tailors to the specific software it is releasing.   I am creating this response by looking at the  Shared Source License for Microsoft Windows CE.NET.  (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/ce.NET/evaluation/sharedsource/eula.asp)

First of all, what are the "good" features of OSS?
1.  Free Redistribution
2.  Source Code
3.  Derived Works
4. Integrity of the Author's Source Code
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7. Distribution of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software

Microsoft embraces numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, 8
It is not clear how Microsoft handles numbers 4, 9

Miscrosoft has major beef with numbers 1, 6.  Microsoft wants to be the only business/person that makes money from using the software (whether by distribution or by using it in a business setting).  

One can not expect Microsoft to conduct a paradigm shift (which in essence what OSS is to corporate licensing) in one big swoop.  The shared source license is a very reasonable, realistic step in "seeing the light."  Any user can learn from the Microsoft code, understand how it works--its design advantages and disadvantages--, innovate off of the work, and have his or her  derivatives be his or her own property to do what he or she wants.  This is a huge step to embracing arguably the best quality of OSS--not stifling intellectual innovation and progress.  

Microsoft still maintains its business model of profitting off the distribution of its software.  Many advocates of OSS say this business model is becoming increasingly outdated and soon will become a way of the past.  The new software business model will be based more on relationships--service, support, and knowledge of the product--but not the physical product itself.  I think this is a very accurate assertion, but I argue that the new business model has not yet killed off the old one.  Microsoft realizes this--and that's why it still maintains it's distribution mode for obtaining profits and is shifting to a more relationship-oriented business model.  The key to remember is that Microsoft is embracing OSS not from an intellectual standpoint or "because it's right."  Microsoft is shifting towards OSS because that's where it needs to be in order to churn profits.  And what's wrong with capitalism?