On Thu, 2014-12-25 at 13:00 -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:44:26AM -0500, Jude Nelson wrote:
> > Hi T.J., sorry this is late--this thread got lost in my inbox.
> >
> > Thank you for your feedback regarding GPLv3.
>
> The *big* problem with GPLv3 is that it is incompatible with GPLv2.
> It *is* compatible with GPL2+, but there is a lot of software that is
> licenced GPL2 without the "or any later version" clause.
>
> This may, of course, be considered a problem with GPL2, but in the
> present software ecology it will make GPL3 code harder to adopt.
>
> I will continue to licence any of my GPL software as GPL2+.

The best would be to use GPL3+ to avoid tivoization. In case you want to
enable commercial use (modifications might not be given back) you can
dual license it, e.g. adding X11 (wrongly MIT) or 2- or 3-clause BSD.
See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html