Microsoft’s current position, taken unilaterally, is intended to eliminate any perceived ambiguity about the applicability of GPLv3 to Microsoft.

After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba.

"Microsoft made a few mistakes in the Novell-Microsoft deal, and GPLv3 is designed to turn them against Microsoft, extending that limited patent protection to the whole community," explains GPLv3 co-author Richard M. Stallman.

"The Free Software Foundation today released the final version of the new GNU General Public License, GPLv3. Novell welcomes and supports GPLv3 and we appreciate the collaborative process that led to its conclusion."

"SJVN jubilates: GPLv3 picks up traction. Consulting gpl3.palamida.com, a site who monitors the conversions to GPLv3 and LGPLv3, he notes: "out of the 3,205 projects licensed under GPLv2 or later, about 8 percent of them have moved to the GPLv3.""

Several large software companies seem satisfied with GPLv3, albeit cautious about adopting it (as corporations are wont to do). IBM intends to release some software under GPLv3, and MySQL says it will switch if GPLv3 is adopted widely.

Alan Cox talks about cooperation with hardware vendors, patent law, microkernels, and GPLv3: "I think [the MS-Novell deal] is a bad idea and that Novell are going to get stung by the GPLv3, and rightfully so. The license is designed to keep the software free, if it fails to do this then it needs fixing, so GPLv3 hopefully will fix this flaw."

So, here's my question: what is Novell talking about? How can we believe that Microsoft has agreed to indemnify GPLv3 code, when it has publicly stated it would rather leap off the Grand Canyon than touch it with a pinky?

Novell will distribute portions of its SUSE Linux enterprise suite that fall under the GPLv3 license directly to customers who purchased certificates that would have entitled them to receive the software from Microsoft.