The FSF was responding to a claim Microsoft made back in July that it would not be bound by the GPLv3 due to its distribution of support certificates for Novell’s SUSE Linux Enterprise Server as part of a controversial interoperability and patent deal.
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, the company stated at the time.
The FSF has responded: Microsoft cannot by any act of anticipatory repudiation divest itself of its obligation to respect others’ copyrights. If Microsoft distributes our works licensed under GPLv3, or pays others to distribute them on its behalf, it is bound to do so under the terms of that license, it said in a statement. It may not do so under any other terms; it cannot declare itself exempt from the requirements of GPLv3.
The FSF also suggested that it would be prepared to take the matter further if it is required to do so. We will ensure – and, to the extent of our resources, assist other GPLv3 licensors in ensuring – that Microsoft respects our copyrights and complies with our licenses, it stated.
Launched at the end of June, version 3 of the General Public License was designed specifically to prevent a repeat of Microsoft’s patent cooperation agreement with Novell, through which the company promised not to sue SUSE Linux users for patent infringement.
While the FSF considered blocking the deal entirely, it decided instead to allow it to remain in place on the grounds that as soon as Novell distributes v3 code, Microsoft’s patent protection will extend to all GPLv3 users thanks to its distribution of vouchers for SUSE Linux support subscriptions.
Microsoft disagreed. We do not believe that Microsoft needs a license under GPL to carry out any aspect of its collaboration with Novell, including its distribution of support certificates, even if Novell chooses to distribute GPLv3 code in the future, it stated in July.
According to the FSF, Microsoft’s aim was the de facto proprietization of free software and an attempt to divide the free software movement. Though the details and timing were a surprise, it was no isolated incident; Microsoft has engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the software industry for many years, and has sought to attack free software for almost as long, it added.
