On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote: > On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > >> As one of the "GPL v2 only" proponents, I take affront. I choose to > >> license what little software I release as GPL v2 only because I do not > >> consider the GPL v3 to have what attracted me to use the GPL v2 in the > >> first place. > > > > The only theoretical advantage I see to GPLv2 is in the termination > > clause, and in practice that seems to be really more trouble than > > it's worth. > > > > Beyond that you have substandard and unclear wording, tivoization, > > lesser patent protection, and incompatibility with Apache 2.0. > > > > So what about that is attractive, and what about v3 is so intolerable > > that you cannot abide your software being distributed under it or > > combined with v3+ works? > > There are organization who will allow v2 but not v3 because of the tivoizaton > and patent clauses. A developer may want > his work to be used by such organizations as well as by Debian.
That would be an argument for v2+, not v2 only. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131228211559.ga6...@roeckx.be
