GPL Licenses Logos Now Available

They are all available as SVG. There are links right above the images. "ctrl-f SVG"

That says they only need to link to the sources somewhere in the torrent.

We really don't need yet another license. What's more, all those changes would probably result in a new license that is again incompatible with GPLv2. The fact is that the "anti-tivoization" clause is, for most free software projects, a smaller problem (if a problem at all) compared to the simple fact that the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2. I fear there is simply no way of creating a "new" GPL license that is compatible with the GPLv2, short of adding an exception like MPLv2 does.

You could, but you could not change the license of code licensed as “GPLv2 or later”, since the full phrase is “under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.”. So only a “GPL” published by the FSF would count as a “later” version.

Seems easier to license your software under GPLv3, along with a statement that you waive licencees form any obligations placed upon them by the clauses you don't like.

If I remember correctly, GPL itself is copyright FSF. I don't think you can use it as a base for derivative work.

Besides, why would you want to go back to v2?! I found no strong argument for v2 except for supporting tivoization.

Yes and no: the part clarifying what happens when one does not comply with the GPL is "objectively better"¹, since it clarifies a legal situation otherwise subject to multiple interpretations. Similarly the clarifications with regard to software distribution, which are enhanced compared to a license written in 1991.

I'd say that "most parts" of the GPLv3 are clearer than the GPLv2: of course one is free to argue that the patent clause and the anti-tivoization clause offset these improvements, but I'd still give credit for the rest.

1. I'm using objectively in a sense that I hope is colloquially understandable, if philosophically wrong.

What do you consider these restrictions to be? The way that GPLv3 works against tivoisation is that it requires downstream distributors to provide the information necessary to defeat it, such as private code-signing keys.[1] You think this is an unacceptable requirement? It seems no more onerous to me than the requirement in GPLv2 that the source code must include all necessary scripts to build and deploy the software.

--

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html

I'm not sure that I've ever seen these logos actually used anywhere, except on the GNU web pages, and on a page that I once maintained.

I certainly recognize them, but I'm not sure about most people...

There's always something worse happenning somewhere. That's not a reason not to care about things like this.

This is a fallacy - we all have to direct our time and resources as we see fit, and it is not feasible or reasonable to expect everyone with a keyboard to contribute in some way to the downfall of ISIS.

Besides, given that we live in the information age, the legal treatment of the software that controls our world is Kind Of A Big Deal.

Yet you just spent time writing a comment on the internet because someone wrote something you disagree with (which means, something bad happened).

Isn't attribution solved by linking at their page with the explanation of the logos?

"Encumbered" sounds just as dogmatic to me. It is very difficult to use absolutely neutral language. The kind of responses that the GPL elicits from some detractors is frequently akin to hatred.

But point taken, I've changed it to "dislike" so that nobody is accused of hatred.