On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:29:00 +0100
KatolaZ <katolaz@???> wrote:

> 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,

Hi KatolaZ,

Thank you, and thank Peter Olson, for your inciteful and incisive
pointing out of facts. I'm now adding GPL3 to the list. And one thing
I've always yearned for about GPLv3 is the anti patent provisions.
Software patents are the spawn of satan, and the entire patent system
is completely out of control (one click ordering my aunt's hat).

All of you have also crystalized one of the factors that have pushed me
away from GPL: The requirements of displaying it. The first UMENU was
in Perl, and it displayed the entire GPLv2 when it terminated. That's
kind of ugly. It would be *really* ugly with the much longer GPLv3.
What methods have you guys used in order to display your GPLv* licenses
in software with a user interface, as required?

Thank you to all of you for helping me focus my thoughts.

SteveT

Steve Litt
August 2016 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
Brand new, second edition
http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr