http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Viral_licensing
" Craig Mundie remarked, "This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it."[35] In another context, Steve Ballmer declared that code released under GPL is useless to the commercial sector (since it can only be used if the resulting surrounding code becomes GPL), describing it thus as "a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches"."
It seems even the Wiki editors believe he was speaking about the GPL.
Stop being a jackass.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc771470.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX
It includes GPL-licensed programs such as GCC and GDB; shouldn't Microsoft have released the source code of Windows Server by now if these statements weren't anything but FUD?
People have been selling access to remotely hosted services since long before 2001 (since before the web, the FSF/GPL, or even the internet or even ARPAnet existed.)
The thing now referred to as "SaaS" has been a thing a lot longer than the name "Software-as-a-Service" or the acronym "SaaS" to refer to the concept has existed.
"Open source is not available to commercial companies" is about as factually incorrect as any statement in the English language can aspire to be.
[1]: http://johnhaller.com/useful-stuff/open-source-license-popul...