Microsoft Statement About GPLv3
A Microsoft statement about GPLv3. — Microsoft is not a party to the GPLv3 license and none of its actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party of GPLv3 or assuming any legal obligations under such license.
Context & Ripple Effects
This statement lands one week after the Free Software Foundation released GPL 3, whose patent provisions were drafted expressly to pull Microsoft's Linux patent commitments into the license — the FSF argued in June that GPLv3 means Microsoft patent protection for all. Microsoft's answer is a flat refusal: it is not a party to GPLv3 and assumes no legal obligations under it.
The refusal caps a spring-long campaign. In May, Microsoft said it will not sue over Linux patents while funding a study finding developers do not want GPL covering patent deals and backing an attack piece on the GPL 3 draft process. The tone of the pickup — All about Microsoft asking whether Microsoft's patent lawyers are 'really this dumb' — shows even sympathetic watchers reading the statement as a defensive legal posture rather than a confident one.
First-order effects
- Microsoft keeps its Linux patent-licensing arrangements outside GPLv3's reach: by disclaiming party status, nothing it does under those deals can be construed as accepting the license's patent-retaliation and termination terms.
- The FSF's central GPLv3 design goal — converting Microsoft's patent pledge into enforceable license obligations — fails at its main target, leaving the license's patent provisions untested against the company they were written for.
Second-order effects
- Corporate adopters and distributors choosing between GPL versions now face a split risk profile: GPLv2 code sits alongside Microsoft's no-suit pledge, while GPLv3 adoption proceeds without any Microsoft obligation attached, sharpening the version-choice calculus for projects and vendors.
- Other holders of cross-licenses and patent deals with Microsoft watch how the FSF responds, since the license's leverage over non-parties is exactly what this statement probes.
Third-order effects
- Open-source licensing hardens into a direct instrument of patent conflict: drafters write terms aimed at specific corporate practices, corporations respond by disclaiming party status, and the battleground shifts from code contribution norms to license-contract law.
- If the standoff holds, expect license-version fragmentation to matter more than license philosophy — which version a project picks determines which corporate patent postures apply to it.
The trend: Software licenses are becoming negotiated weapons in patent disputes, with the FSF's GPLv3 drafting and Microsoft's refusal of party status marking the opening of a corporate-versus-foundation standoff over Linux patent protection.