From 8be5affab968923c1bd2cde03c1d8589479a43f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 07:04:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] first draft: completed Historical Background section --- gpl-installation.tex | 11 ++++++++++- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gpl-installation.tex b/gpl-installation.tex index b4c958f..5ea9bd0 100644 --- a/gpl-installation.tex +++ b/gpl-installation.tex @@ -201,6 +201,15 @@ We now see the same process happening, albeit much more slowly, with GPLv3. We hear rhetoric drawing attention to perceived differences between GPLv2's and GPLv3's requirements, which seem untenable to firms, some of whom maintain GPLv2'd forks of projects that have moved on to the -``GPLv3-or-later'' upstream. +``GPLv3-or-later'' upstream. It is our view that if firms give some +attention to the history of ``slow but sure'' adoption of copyleft licenses, +after careful study of the compliance requirements, that GPLv3 requirements +can become as acceptable as the GPLv2 requirements already are. This paper +provides analysis, guidance and explanation of a set of specific terms in +GPLv3 that some firms have declared untenable: GPLv3's updated Installation +Information requirements. It is our hope that this detailed analysis will +replace rumor and supposition about GPLv3 requirements with cool-headed +consideration of the trade-offs between avoiding GPLv3 and meeting those +requirements --- just as firms did in the late 1990s with GPLv2. \end{document}