GPLv3 - Update was: Re: [LINK] the slow motion gpl trainwreck

Glen Turner glen.turner at
Tue Jul 25 15:07:27 AEST 2006

Brendan Scott wrote:

> But I suspect that he doesn't understand how the commercial part of the 
> open source community can live with GPL v2. However, they seem to - in 
> spades.  I suggest the answer lies in the fact that the GPL promotes a 
> customer's property in the software (and content) they buy, and in the 
> end, it is all about money, the customer's money.  A free software 
> market will trump a monopoly software market.  It is only a question of 
> time. 

A new version of the GNU GPL is not like a new version of
software. There's no reason to "upgrade", ever.

The revision is to address future threats to free software.
If you don't believe those threats are significant or that
the GPL3 addresses those threats effectively then GPL2 remains
a perfectly fine choice.

I'm not keen on the anti-DRM stance in GPL3. I would have thought
a "live free or die" clause in the Creative Commons licenses
would have been more effective. [1]  But the FSF doesn't control
those licenses, whereas they do write the GPL.


  [1] Meaning that the CC-licensed content should prevent
      the content being "protected" by a DRM system.

More information about the Link mailing list