On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:43:25AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:31:18 -0400 (EDT)
> Peter Olson <peabo@???> wrote:
>

[cut]

> > What complication don't you like about GPLv3+ ?
>
> I just briefly reread it, and didn't see an glaring problems.
> However, I'd need to study it for a week to understand it.
>

Steve, I would warmly suggest you to seriously consider GPLv3. It is
basically GPLv2, with further points specifically aimed at avoiding
known vulnerabilites of the GPLv2, especially regarding "tivoization"
(the possibility of forcing a device to stop working if it detects
changes in the GPL-covered software it uses, which is against freedom
1) and patent-related issues (in particular, if a patent covers part
of a GLPv3 software, the act of distribution of that software by the
developer is considered as the an automatic, unlimited, royalty-free
license for that patent, which bolsters freedom 2 and freedom 3). Here
a short prose about the improvements introduced by GPLv3:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html

Apart from that, it is a copyleft licence, which guarantees to users
and developers the same 4 freedoms which inspired GPLv1 and
GPLv2. Just remember that, for a formal reason, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are
link-incompatible. In fact, each of them specifies that the software
they cover (and any derivative) should be distributed under "the same
licence".

Feel free to post any doubt here.

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[     "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[       @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[     @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]