Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007, Mikhael Goikhman wrote about "Re: GPL v3": >> On 01 Jul 2007 09:38:32 +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote: >>> I am now wondering whether I should switch to GPL v3 in free software that >>> I am writing, so I am looking for comparisons of the GPL v3 to the well- >>> known (and 15 years old) GPL v2. >> ... >> Whether you should upgrade to a version with no known holes (v3 or later) >> or stay with known holes (v2 or later), it's up to you. Largest holes >> that v3 closes: >> >> * patent agreements like Novell-Microsoft targetted to defend Novell >> users against Microsoft patent claims at expense of other users of >> the same program will be impossible >> * devices that _artificially_ disallow modifying the GPL source (thus >> revoking the software freedom number 2 from the users) using secret >> keys or such will be impossible > > Thanks. I'm not sure, though, what exactly these mean in practice: What > does the GPL v3 say about patents that helped it defend against Microsoft's > "attack"? How does the GPL define a "device" that your second comment > applies to? Does the GPL v3 say anything about the latet fad in software - > "software as a service" (where the users use the software running on a remote > machine, and never actually get a copy)? > > Of course, I can read the GPL v3 text and get all the answers myself. But > I was hoping that someone already has some sort of annotated version, > explaining the differences from GPL v2. > >> * there is an option to use Affero GPL to extend the copyleft concept >> to the network applications, if this is what you want > > Interesting. I've never heard of this before... > I'll look it up. Thanks. >
I've written an article (Hebrew) regarding the changes in GPLv3: http://whatsup.org.il/article/5770 Hopefully it'll clarify the issue Cheers -- Meir Kriheli --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
