The lack of the "Mac" moniker makes sense to me as the iPhone runs OS X but it's not a Mac. I suspect it's an attempt to make devs realise that if they're developing for the Mac, they're actually developing for OS X and can therefore produce apps for the iPhone too.What I find more intriguing is that they're not poking fun at Redmond this year - I wonder if they're taking a more sombre approach to things these days.

Could be the impending death of Linux (otherwise known as Apple releasing all of OS X as open source)..

Ahh.. one could only wish..

So why is it a picture of a SNOW leopard? Perhaps you refer to the rumored 10.6 by inference.

Hopefully this does not mean OS X licensing, but that could be a possibility.

The poster further back reads "OS X iPhone." Seems they reinforcing the strengths and diversity of OS X.

Apple will not be open-sourcing Leopard, Tiger, Panther, etc. They've got too much money tied into it, and too many products that revolve around it, to open source it and allow other device makers to use all their work to make an iPhone or mac replica that solves all your immediate problems, "Well, it doesn't run OS X, so it isn't a competitor".

And I'm sure those thinking about Apple opening the Leopard to run on all PCs are also those who claim the beauty of Apple is the tie-in they have to the hardware.

But to this:
Oh to have OS X on a PC without all kinds of hacks... what a dream that would be.

Maybe not hacks, but right now it can run only on limited hardware due to limited driver support. You're not running it on any ol' Dell with some fancy video card if there's no video card drivers for the card. Or mobo drivers to support the on-board components.

And it would just kill Apple hardware sales, as many people would opt for cheap hardware over Apple's more expensive stuff (you know, the ol' "How come you can't get a 15" mac laptop for less than $2000???" argument.)