Microsoft is saying it isn’t bound by the GPLv3. The company issued a statement on July 5th that made its intentions very clear. What does that mean Linux distributions?

Will the open source community’s alleged patent infringements on Microsoft’s intellectual property become a major legal issue in the days ahead? We talked with Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interabor Solutions, about this development in the open source saga. Here’s what he had to say:

The software industry is moving into a higher level of brinkmanship around licensing and the impact around Microsoft’s covenant deal with Novell. From what we’ve read, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) concluded that the Microsoft deal with Novell was counter to the spirit of the GPL license. Remember, the FSF was in the final stages of version 3 of the GPL when it decided to add some wording that they considered would close this “loophole.”

Click here to read more about ServerPronto’s Linux-based dedicated servers.

Now Microsoft is saying it is not bound and this doesn’t affect the company and they plan to continue on their merry way. The ball is now back in the court of those who are in the position of trying to enforce or define the implications of the version 3 license.

So on one hand I’m curious as to whether this could escalate quite high. That is to say, if Microsoft will escalate it to challenge GPL licenses or open source licenses in general. Or on the other side whether the Free Software Foundation might escalate this to challenge any control over intellectual property or software in general.

The implications for escalation here could be quite large, but that’s going to take many months if not many years. In the meantime, I think Microsoft has accomplished its short-term goals, which is to create fear, uncertainty and doubt around the use of Linux. We are in the period of he-said-she-said around the GPL version 3, which is exactly what MIcrosoft wanted.

There will be risk averse people who know where to stand. Until we see something in the form of injunctions or something more certain about Microsoft’s role, they won’t know where to stand. But even so, that in itself would create more confusion or more doubt.

The long-term implications are that this could blow up into something significant around how software is licensed. On the short-term Microsoft can use this to try to convince enterprises not to use Linux unless Microsoft anoints it and collects a fee.

What do you think?