Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]
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
Reply to: