Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful
* Clint Adams:
> 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.
ASL 2.0 compatibility is nice, but the GPLv3 also contains this clause
which (in my opinion) substantially weakens its copyleft effect:
| You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of
| having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
| with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply
| with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which
| you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the
| covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under
| your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making
| any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship
| with you.
Several ISPs claim that the GPLv2 has a similar loophole and refuse to
provide kernel sources for the router they give to you as part of the
Internet service, so it's not just nitpicking. It makes me seriously
doubt that the anti-Tivoization measures in the GPLv3 have any teeth
at all.
Some might object to Section 13, "Use with the GNU Affero General
Public License" because of the the way the AGPL is currently used to
enforce asymmetrical licensing arrangements.
Reply to: