Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]
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.webb@bregmasoft.ca>
Reply to: