GPL v3

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Mats Lidell writes:

 > Stephen J. Turnbull writes:

 > > Until we decide we want to go v3, which is not quite a no-brainer.  

 > Not going with v3 will, I guess, cause problems with package syncs, new 
 > code and possibly more. So there must be a downside as well, Could you 
 > please elaborate on the problems we need to address.

There are no "problems" *we* can address; we either accept the GPLv3
or we don't.  From a pragmatic standpoint, as you point out, we have
been made an offer we can't refuse.  That's why I say it's a
no-brainer.

The "almost" is pure "I don't use .0 versions of software, and I don't
want to use .0 versions of legal documents, either, until they've been
field-tested."  The GPLv2 has many nitpicky legal problems, starting
from the fact that it is as much a manifesto as it is a license.  The
GPLv3 hasn't really improved on those problems, and adds *lots* more,
including language that is void on the face of it (para 1 of sec 3 and
sec 17).  The language is generally much more obscure than GPLv2 was;
that cannot be good, not as law and not for the movement.