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

[Виталий Филиппов <vitalif@yourcmc.ru>]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:59:35 +0400, Stephen M. Webb
<stephen.webb@bregmasoft.ca> wrote:

> 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.

IMHO this point of view should be incorrect... The "or later" clause
should mean that everyone is free to choose the license they want for
REdistribution - GPL2, GPL3 or maybe GPL4 in the future :) and they don't
need to fulfill the GPL3 requirements in that case. But anyone can take
their code, modify and REdistribute it under GPL3.

--
With best regards,
    Vitaliy Filippov