We do not...agree with Microsoft's characterization of the situation involving GPLv3. 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 may not do so under any other terms; it cannot declare itself exempt from the requirements of GPLv3.
Microsoft has said that it expects respect for its so-called "intellectual property"--a propaganda term designed to confuse patent law with copyright and other unrelated laws, and to muddy the different issues they raise. 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.
Them's fighting words, and rightly so. Microsoft is in no position to determine which open-source licenses it respects. If it distributes software under the GPLv3, it is bound to abide by its terms. Period. End of story.
I suspect that if Microsoft pushes this issue, it will find a long list of people happy to fund the FSF's lawsuits against Microsoft. Microsoft is basically throwing down the gauntlet on open source, and not merely one license. It will find it has many enemies in such an endeavor.