An article from ITWire reaffirms our suspicion that Novell's public statement was an expression and admission of worry and doubt. Rightfully so.

Tellingly, Novell's statement describes Microsoft's position as being "taken unilaterally" - presumably an indication that Novell isn't completely happy with the situation.

And there are other signs that the partners aren't in complete harmony.

Novell insists that GPLv3 does not touch it. So does Microsoft. However, while Microsoft vows never to distribute (let alone touch) GPLv3-licensed software, Novell insists that its tie with Microsoft does not affect its (Novell's) ability to distribute GPLv3-licensed software. The expiration day on the coupon plays a role here. It surely complicates things.

Progress on the upgrades to GPLv3 cannot be denied. Even those who were skeptical simply have to admit that hard numbers cannot be ignored. The evolving nature of the licence can only be denied by those who bury their heads in the sand.

Still, it's [GPLv3] a good license, and I think the adoption will continue and accelerate as people grok it better. I particularly think that it will find adherents in companies and communities that have used quasi-open source licenses. It allows for reasonable attribution, for one thing, which may serve to obviate the whole MPL+attribution debate.