On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > 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.
Nope. An organization that will not accept the GPLv3 because of the tivoization and patent clauses will not accept GPLv2 or later. The "or later" clause means a downstream can invoke their rights under the GPLv3 to demand secret encryption keys or upstream can revoke the license for patent action. These organizations do not accept GPLv2+ because it's effectively GPLv3. -- Stephen M. Webb <stephen.w...@bregmasoft.ca> -- 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/52bf57d7.2080...@bregmasoft.ca
