GPLv2 or GPLv3?

Which is best?

  • GPLv1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • GPLv2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • GPLv3

    Votes: 2 66.7%
  • GPLv1 or later

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • GPLv2 or later

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • GPLv3 or later

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • GPLv2 OR GPLv3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • GPLv2 AND GPLv3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other GPL related license

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Non-GPL

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3

Though it would still suck, and copyright is still obvious corruption. People like Mozart produced with 0 years of copyright, but nowadays people need to have exclusive rights until 70 years after they expire in order to motivate them to create anything? Copyright laws are just evidence that lawmakers have been bought by large corporations.

Also IMO copyright as a whole is a bad idea but it's here so I just roll with the punches. If you put your work under a permissive license or public domain then someone else can just put copyright on it (after modifying it a bit) so there is no escaping copyright laws.
Copyright is fine. It just needs to work like a patent for at most 20 years after creation. 70 years after the creator's death is just insane.
 
Copyright is fine. It just needs to work like a patent for at most 20 years after creation. 70 years after the creator's death is just insane.
Or you could have some relation between the total amount you made from your work and the amount of time past.
If your work takes a time to get noticed you could get full compensation, and for each year after that the compensation is lowered.

I guess the total copyright/patent system should be revisited. Everyone wants something fair. If you do a good job creating something you want to support that so more can be created.
But 70 years later doesn't sound reasonable.

Same with GPLv2: we don't like companies making money abusing someone else's work. But we do like good work being promoted. So GPLv2 is a balance.
Having a fair compensation in place should be acceptable by everyone, eventually. Companies are aimed at making money, so abusing the system to do this is always a risk. The risk of losing money prevents GPLv3 being mainstream I would guess.
 
GPLv3 seems to have better termination, though. As I understand it, with GPLv2 you could lose all your rights immediately just for forgetting to upload the source for a day. While with GPLv3 you can correct your mistake and then get your rights back provisionally and after 60 days of no complaints from the copyright holder permanently. And even if the copyright holder does complain you still get a chance to restore your rights permanently if it is your first violation.

GPLv3 has better protection for recipients that way. Though I am not sure if it has really made a difference in practice. I guess with GPLv2 one could maybe copyright troll by always checking someone's source code server and then if it is down due to technical issues immediately create evidence and then use it to blackmail that person. With GPLv3 the blackmailing would only work the second time and only for 60 days.
 
Back
Top