So now you have to go back "some time" in the future to clean up the mess you left the first time? Who's going to pay for the cleanup?
By "some time" I'm meaning days or weeks, not many months or more.
Slap everything commented that doesn't need to persist with a "CLEANUP" tag and scan for them pre-release or at then end of a run of sprints (and/or as you approach a release, where-ever it fits in your flow) as part of your other housekeeping tasks. Give the job to a junior so he/she might learn from the changes (have a more experienced dev to hand in case of questions, and to try make sure the wrong things are not learnt from less "clean" work).
Try and submit a patch with a bunch of commented out code to a major open source project and see if it gets accepted.
Each open source project will their own preferences and rules which are fine by me, but equally are not my problem currently (if I were to have something to contribute I'd would of course try to fit into the project's preferred coding standards (or just release my changes as-is and if anyone else wants to clean them up and claim the credit they can go right ahead, if not then fair enough too)).
With Vista, the mystery was how they'd managed to get so little done in 6-odd years of development
The amount of jiggery pokery they'd done to the internals was quite obvious and caused one of Vista's greatest problems. A lot of the internals had changed including several alterations that meant needing new drivers for existing devices which a lot of manufacturers didn't bother producing (why would Epson, to give an example I presonally experienced, spend time writing drivers for their old devices, time they'd see no money back from, when they might instead get some sales of a new devices when peopel discovered Vista didn't like the old ones?), and often the Vista drivers (both for new devices and where they were created to support old ones) were much less tested than the existing XP ones so early adoptors exsperienced a lot of bugs.
What is Open Source information?
The quote is "open-source information" - the lack of capitalisation is significant here: no link to the OSI is intended to be implied.
Open-source information is a fairly common term in some circles, it refers to information that can be obtained or derived from sources that are open to (legitimate) public access. In other words accessing that information does not in itself constitute a break of any law or other rule.
Of course the way he used the information once he had obtained it is another matter.
The OSI foundation doesn't seem to be doing a good job of enforcing the trademark of the term Open Source.
They can't in this instance. "open-source information" is a phrase that has been used by people intelligence services, academia, and other organisations since long before the OSI existed in any form. Even if they could afford the team of lawyers Microsoft use to defend their sole use of the word "windows" in certain contexts, I doubt this would be one of the contexts where they would win.
they only need to make this available to their own customers
But they also can't stop their customers making the GPL covered code available elsewhere once they have access to it, so releasing to their customers is effectively releasing to the world.
A successful [software] tool is one that was used to do something undreamed of by its author. -- S. C. Johnson