OSNews

Do you really think that? I'd imagine as time goes on and people have a chance to start using it, many will complain about things others rejoice.

Still, good to see it's finally done.

already right now there are literally hundreds of quite high profile projects under gplv3.. because they are using "or later". so its not like it wont be used.

me personally, i'll use it aswell.

You have to wonder how many projects will stay permanantly on "GPL 2.0" basis.

When people license software under the GPL and use the "or later" clause, the use of this wording doesn't imply retroactive changes to the licensing terms once a "later" revision of the GPL exists. The terms allows the users to distribute the licensed software under the new terms when they exist.

id est, now the gpl3 exists, all projects licensed under gpl2 or later are not automatically using the terms of gpl3. **the distributor of the software has to specify that they are offering the software under gplv3**.

"""
all the bickering is over and now
"""

You're ever the optimist. I'll give you that. :-)

Well, it was till Thom linked to that sensationally bad article from the Jem Report: which is the product of a fairly clever piece of trolling, or astonishingly ignorant and adolescent reporting.

It is wrong in almost every respect, and written with what is a clear bias.

I've written already, but I'll summarise some things here. The main issues with GPL v2 were

1) There were worries that it wouldn't stand up in foreign jurisdictions. This was an issue as developers all over the world were using it

2) There were worries people could incorporate GPL code into their products, sell those products, and prevent people using their changes as required by the spirit, and in theory the letter, of the license by abusing either the patent or DRM systems.

The fear that it wouldn't stand up abroad is why it was re-worded and why it now appears to be in legalese. The Jem Report author considers this to be a flaw, but what serious contract isn't written in legalese?! If I have to choose a license for my software, I'd prefer legalese to English, as ultimately it's lawyers that make the choice.

The patent and DRM restrictions are designed solely to plug the second loophole. They have been crafted after a lot of work. They do not seek to ban DRM entirely, only DRM that prevents you from reusing or altering the source-code to make derivative products.

All of this information is easily available from the Internet, and has been for some time. The GPL is not out to screw users, or to make cooperation impossible (indeed, they worked quite hard to try to make it compatible with the Apache license). It's just out to do what it's always done: protect those who share code from those who would try to use that code without sharing back. All that's changed is it's evolved to close new loopholes that have arisen.

The article was clearly written with a bias, without basic research, without consideration, and from what I can see, with a view to inflame passions. The question is, did OSNews pick such a flawed inflammatory article out of incompetence, carelessness, or a malicious desire inflame passions among its readers to maintain levels of traffic..

Edited 2007-06-30 02:02

Bias is not to be avoided at any costs (like you avoid anthrax). We all have a bias of some sort. The author of the article openly admits it AND explains his bias. Articles like this one are actually great because they show us the standpoint of the author and because of that should not be flamed like you do. You seem to think that any bias except your own is not acceptable and that kind of attitude is what prevents compromises acceptable to all. Just as somebody has mentioned before: it's an ego issue, not a software license issue.

Edited 2007-06-30 09:27

all the bickering is over and now the licence can actually be used!

I really do hope linux (as in the kernal) adopts it else I fear linux will be a kernel that noone uses and all the 'war of words' will have been in vain.

;)

if you aren't happy with it don't use it and stop trolling and/or spreading shit.

GNU FREE AS IN FREEDOM!

Edited 2007-06-30 00:01

Freedom isn't an absolute concept. There is no such thing as absolute freedom, because it would imply having the freedom to deny other people's freedom.

Don't like GPLv3? Don't use it and don't use software licensed with it. Problem solved.

Don't like GPLv3? Don't use it and don't use software licensed with it. Problem solved.

Is not as easy as that, we often atack MS for imposing things with its Monopoly position, now we see the FSF imposing the GPLv3 with its GNU tools monopoly.

FSF must know that is not better that MS.

@MORB
**The GPL is a distribution licence** and not a usage licence. You do not have to agree to anything in the GPL to use GPL software. You have to follow the GPL's terms if you wish to **distribute** GPL software.

What a load.

No one is pointing a gun at your head forcing you to copy or link with GPL'd code or even use GPL'd programs.

I wonder how someone who has such qualms about the FSF & and their brand of free-software became so dependant on them. Perhaps one of those free loaders that came about once GNU/Linux started to gain prominence and had no problems utilizing the software born of the movement but the nerve to label the leaders as fascists --not that don't have the right to do so--. But that's just speculation.

If you're really concerned though, I suggest one of the BSDs.

Edited 2007-06-30 01:04

Unfortunately, we're seeing a backlash against the FSF, mainly due to these ex Windows refugees who are so used to the proprietary "you can't do anything with the software" approach they show disdain for anything that tries to broaden their freedoms. I really wish those sorts would bugger off and go back to Windows and leave free software alone. They all want to seem to use, abuse the free software packages, and then demand/dictate that they get their own way and the FSF roll over to the proprietary software types. No thanks. Keep on keeping on FSF and RMS, you're doing a sterling job, even if there's a bunch of idiots out there that don't understand the dangers surrouding free software in the modern world.

Dave

How the hell did this get modded up? Hello guys, it contains an insult, and should be modded down - which is what I did. As Ripley said "excuse me, but have IQs dropped!"

Dave

Since a lot of software is marked as "GPL v2 or later" and (now) "GPL v3 or later", here's a GPL v4 that would make everyone happy:

---

GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE v4

1) The licensor gains an perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to redistribute, modify, use, extend, implement, trnaslate, improve and relicense the software, in source and binary forms.

2) This software is provided "as is" and any express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are disclaimed. In no event shall the licensor or contributors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, procurement of substitute goods or services; loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption) however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in any way out of the use of this software, even if advised of the possibility of such damage.

---

We could call it the BPL (Best Possible License) or just the "Best License" for short. It'd sure solve a lot of headaches.

Congratulations, you've recreated the MIT/X11 and BSD licenses.

Your license is a non-copyleft. It doesn't require the availability of corresponding source code. It doesn't offer any protection from the aggressive use of patents. It doesn't have any terminating conditions. It doesn't establish any terms for retaining or modifying attribution. It doesn't even declare copyright ownership, let alone require that it be retained.

I suggest you take a look at Apache 2. It's the most reasonable non-copyleft, non-share-alike license in common use today. Imagine if the BSD license were actually written by lawyers instead of a bunch of academics doing their best. Copyright isn't simple. We can pretend it is, but in the end, lawyers and judges are responsible for enforcing the intent of a license.

Your license is a non-copyleft. It doesn't require the availability of corresponding source code. It doesn't offer any protection from the aggressive use of patents. It doesn't have any terminating conditions. It doesn't establish any terms for retaining or modifying attribution. It doesn't even declare copyright ownership, let alone require that it be retained.

Just needless cruft that I cleaned out.

It's not needless cruft. It's what makes the GPLv2/v3 what they are. Without it you cannot have the certainty that the derivative code will carry the same freedoms for others.

Not that what you propose is inherently bad, but it's just not what some people want for their code. Lots of people, incidentally.

Honestly, I think that FSF is a dangerous cancer that is expanding,

No, proprietary software and the DRM-loving culture are the cancer.

Today Prince has been threatened by the recording industry with withdrawal of his albums from the shops for doing a deal with a British newspaper to release a CD free to its readers. Why the hell shouldn't he do so if he wishes? It's thanks to the if-it-moves-own-it culture to which proprietary software (and hardware) owes its existence that this kind of drivel persists. I say 'drivel', I mean 'dangerous and extortionist drivel'.

What complete and utter bullshit. Exactly who is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use GPL3? And who says that if you have a piece of music that is DRM'ed, that the DRM is optional?

Please get a braincell before you post again.

You can write DRM applications with GPLv3 ... the only restriction is that you do not apply the DRM to the GPLv3 software itself.

There is no restriction to writing a Music Player (for example) that applies DRM to music files.

Not quite. You are allowed to have DRM in GPL3 software **as long as that DRM does not prevent users from practising their "free software rights" for that software**. For example, you are allowed to distribute GPL3 software that implements Windows Media DRM or Apple Fairplay DRM.

What you are not allowed with GPL3 is: implement any technical measure that prevents users from practising their "free software rights". Tivo is the most famous example that uses DRM that prevents users from running modified copies of the licensed software. The DRM allows only Tivo blessed software to run on Tivo boxes and so, deprives users of the right to run software that is not blessed by Tivo.

Edited 2007-06-30 13:42

And BTW, the fact of not being a puppet of the FSF doesn't make me DRM lover, I don't like DRM eather so stop making FUD.

Which says nothing about being able to own your own IP, as is your right. That recent problem of Prince's says nothing about having the ability to own your own work, and everything about signing the rights to your work away to a large group who doesn't have your interests at heart.

... hmm. A paper comparing the actions of the FSF and the RIAA might be a interesting article to research and write, someday...

If you want to give your software away for free, use BSD. If you want to share your software, use the GPL.

Software under the GPL is not free. Microsoft office is not free, you have to pay Microsoft money. The Borland developer tools are not free, you have to pay Borland (or whatever they're called these days).

Lastly, software released under the GPL is not free: if you choose to copy and paste GPL code into your own program you have to share it. This is how you pay for GPL code. This is a very egalitarian idea: I share my code, and if you use it in your own program, you pay me back by sharing your code or else you ask me to relicense the code under a different license to suit your needs (which was always possible).

To make sure no-one can escape sharing (after all, this is how they're paying to use the software), GPL v3 requires the following

(a) You make the source code available

(b) You don't use patents to prevent people from using your code, which would effectively block code-sharing despite (a)

(c) You don't use DRM to prevent people from using your code, which would effectively block code-sharing, like (a)


The GPL is no more viral than any commercial license, the only difference is in how you pay to use the software. And it's always worth remembering that you don't have to share until you distribute the source-code (and as corporations are legal entities, you can give a copy to all your 1000-odd co-workers without legally distributing it). It's further worth remembering that if this is a problem, you can always ask the original author to re-license their work under a commercial license if you would rather not share.

This GPL is viral/evil/not-as-cool-as-BSD thing is rubbish. It does what it sets out to do: encourage people to share code. There's no excuse for "accidentally" using GPL code in your own software, just as there's no excuse for "accidentally" installing a pirated copy of MS Office on your friends PC. Both place value on software, and if you choose to use it in a certain way, then you have to pay for them: the only difference is in how you pay.

This is easily the most sane, balanced and well-written BSD/GPL comparison I have ever read.

You deserve a 10.

A very good and still simple comparison, thank you. Just to put it into a formal setting:

BSD -> use for free, as long as BSDL code copyright is retained
GPLv2 -> use and contribute back
GPLv3 -> use, contribute back and don't use patents / DRM
Commercial -> use and pay money

The GPLv3 extends the requirements of the v2, while the BSDL has lower requirements than GPLv2 and v3.

=> BryanFeeney.mod++;

GPL3 is written in *exactly* the same spirit as GPL2. The essence of all GNU GPLs are:
* The concept of conveying the four freedoms of free software to all licensees
* The concept of ensuring that the licensees of GPLed software will not "subjugate" other users i.e., the GPL has language that prevents licensees from distributing the GPLed software as proprietary software.

The major changes in GPL3 are:
* Tighter wording of the language of GPL2 to facilitate international enforcement of the licence.
* Explicit declaration of terms that were present but only implied in GPL2

Totally agree, yet when Linus says this, the FSF crowd criticizes him for not understanding the "spirit" of the GPL.



Ah, well, now we're on a different page. Using DRM to prevent people from using your code is already prevented by the GPL. What v3 does is prevent hardware manufacturers from using DRM to restrict the GPL code that can run on it, if they are distributing GPL code as part of their product. And there we have the big split between the kernel devs and the FSF. Tivoisation.

The GPL v2 requires anyone using GPL v2-licensed code to provide source for any modifications they make to the code they distribute.

The GPL v3 requires anyone using GPL v3-licensed code as part of their product to provide a method for anyone to modify the code running on their product for their own requirements.

In other words, GPL v3 would prevent linux from being used as an embedded solution for things like Tivo, cell phones, media centers, networking gear etc. unless those manufacturers intentionally permitted their hardware to be "hacked". The fact that the companies utilizing the GPL software provide back all of their modifications to the benefit of the community is immaterial, because the community demands the exclusive right to modify the hardware as they see fit.

In an ideal world, this wouldn't be a problem. There would be nothing like FCC regulations on wireless that force manufacturers to intentionally obfuscate interfaces to prevent modification that could permit wireless use outside of regulations. The content owners wouldn't have such control over governmental regulation that they could impose such strict controls over the right of companies to be able to present that content. Companies like Tivo would be able to utilize linux as a means to deliver a relatively cheap service for customers without being forced to give those customers the right to take that service at will. But this isn't an ideal world.

As Linus pointed out several times, Linux isn't about changing the world for philosophical reasons. It's about providing the best possible open solution in the face of real world conditions. Compromises permitting commercial and community benefit are provided by v2, not so much by v3.

That's the difference.

v2 is about "can't we all just get along?"; v3 is about "no, we can't".

Edited 2007-06-30 01:24 UTC

Totally agree, yet when Linus says this, the FSF crowd criticizes him for not understanding the "spirit" of the GPL.

"Letter" and "spirit" comprise an idiom with a long-established meaning that vested interests like to twist. In particular, dictionaries indicate that the letter and spirit of any rule or document are solely determined by the intent of its authors. Thus, either Linus agrees that the spirit of the GPL is what the GPL's authors, the FSF, would agree with, or Linus had better not refer to the "spirit of the GPL" if he wishes to be correct.

As Linus pointed out several times, Linux isn't about changing the world for philosophical reasons. It's about providing the best possible open solution in the face of real world conditions. Compromises permitting commercial and community benefit are provided by v2, not so much by v3.

Whatever Linus is pointing out, it applies to at most his own projects, such as the kernel and git. Moreover, your opinion regarding "best" and "benefit" is unsupported. E.g., a benefit to Tivo does not necessarily come without harm to a community.

Edited 2007-06-30 01:52

An amusing argument, I'd enjoy watching you argue it in front of a judge. At any rate, Linus has never referred to the "spirit" of the GPL. In fact, he's gone out of his way to point out that "spirit" is immaterial to the actual content of the license.



Thank you for acknowledging that. Most v3 proponents would deny that Linus is entitled to point out his interpretation of the license as it applies to his own little project. Secondly, your denial of my opinion regarding "best" and "benefit" is unsupported. E.g., a benefit to Tivo does not necessarily come with harm to a community.

v2 is about "can't we all just get along?"; v3 is about "no, we can't".

Very true. GPLv3 is the coming of age of an idealistic social movement that has finally discovered that they have placed too much faith in humanity. The way of man is to lie, cheat, and steal his way to power. So what do we do about it?

Jem makes the tempting comparison to American technofascism, but this is straw-man. How can RMS speak out against the Patriot Act and then draft a restrictive license? Simple. The Patriot Act was the inevitable result of their being no law against legislation of this sort. There's a law against the government spying on citizens (which has been ignored, but that's another story), but nobody ever thought to prevent the government from requiring citizens to spy on other citizens.

The GPLv2 assumed that, like a constitution, a framework for guiding the judgment of right and wrong would be sufficient for enforcing its intent. But we live in a world where governments around the world, especially the U.S., have found ways to make their constitutions increasingly irrelevant. Our civil liberties are disappearing at an alarming rate. Checks and balances are following suit. And since it's so politically expedient for Congress to declare war on things like drugs and terrorism, there's no reason why the executive branch can't operate under the War Powers Act at all times.

So what to we do about it? How can we restore civility to a world that has ceased to honor the principles that underly its laws? It's clear to me that a copyright license alone cannot correct several decades of legal precedent and human nature. But it can be a step in the right direction. It's not easy to watch as freedom, democracy, and human rights are used as justification for their own demise. But that doesn't mean we should become complacent, and in fact, complacency will only make matters worse.

Software is as good a domain as any to begin to take back our freedom. Some people say that the GPLv3 adds restrictions that counteract freedom, but I disagree. The GPLv3 adds responsibilities to protect freedom. A device vendor that restricts the modification of its software is not protecting freedom. If they don't wish to protect freedom, then they can use non-GPL software.

What we've learned from history is that if freedom is not protected, it is gradually eliminated. We are taught today that we must give up certain freedoms to protect others, but this is wrong. The truth is that the only way to protect freedom is to make it our collective and personal responsibility to protect freedom.

It's a tough sell, especially for corporations that perceive their only responsibility is the one to their shareholders. They'll do everything they can to protect their bottom line. The GPLv2 was fine for developers with an interest in protecting freedom. But now that the GPL community includes various business interests, the only way to hold them accountable for protecting freedom is to make it their legal responsibility. We can't trust them to do what's right. Hence the GPLv3.

The way I understand it, the GPL3 doesn't prevent anyone from implementing restrictive DRM. It just forbids the licensee to sue anyone who breaks it (thus mitigating the DMCA in the USA, for example). This seems to be a very popular misunderstanding.

Public domain is even better if you want to give your code away. It's been known that certain companies have manged to not comply with the BSD license. How lazy are you if you can't comply with that?

Copyrights, patents, software licenses, and other intellectually property have slowly whittled away the commons of culture and the freedoms of the individual. The GPL sets out to use the framework of software license to make them more free, as does the BSD, but they go about it in different ways.

In the world of copyright, the GPL is more like one of the Creative Commons Licenses, because CCL uses the framework of copyright to grant more freedoms than you'd otherwise have. All this GPLv3 talk would be unnecessary if companies didn't use the letter of the GPL to undermine the spirit of the GPL and/or new problems didn't arise.

(c) You don't use DRM to prevent people from using your code, which would effectively block code-sharing, like (a)

First of all I want to say that your post was great and I largely agree with what you said.

However I want to comment on the above point. Tivo (and others) never used DRM to stop people from using their GPL'd code, they wouldn't be allowed to do so under GPLv2 and it would have stupid of them to even try. You could take the code and use it in any way you wanted within the scope of GPLv2. No problems at all.

What they tried to stop you from was run your own binaries on the hardware they sold you. So you could take their code, change it, include it in your own project, compile and run it without restrictions, as long as you ran it on some other piece of hardware.

I am sharing your wonderful comment on my blog. If you don't like it, please contact me.

Indeed, this is. However, note that this does NOT mean this is a fair trade. If you think otherwise, let us trade "metal for metal": You sent me a ton of gold while I sent you a pound of lead.

You see, trading "stuff for stuff" is not necessarily fair. The problem is what "prices" are charged. and the evaluation of what constitutes a 'fair' price usually differs.

The GPL requests people to publish modifications to awork under the GPL if they are distributed at all. This could be considered an acceptable -- and thus "fair" -- price. After all, you can't claim to be able to make an income from this code, since much of it is not yours.

But the GPL also requests that independent works -- namely "extensions" to a GPL code (for example, "plug-ins to a framework", "applications to libraries", etc.) -- are to be published under a compatible license as well. I believe the correct GPL3 clause is "You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy." Here, the price gets unreasonable.

For example, Adobe may be required to publish Photoshop under the GPL3, if they would need to use a GPL3 library. In other words, Adobe would be required to pay a fee by giving up its license income for Photoshop. That would be millions of dollars. Of course, Adobe would not do this but write their own library or license a different one for the usual market prices.

In the long run, the more libraries use GPL3, the less attractive is a port of Photoshop (or any other closed-source applications) to Linux. As a result, users will pay the final price: Either because their are required to use a additional, completely non-free operating system, or because they have to pay Adobe and others for the development of the additional libraries.

Of course, from the point of view of the GNU project --spreading their definition of software "freedom" --, this is not a problem. For others -- people with different ethical positions -- this is counter-productive and unnecessary.

You don't need to accept other people's position here. But please note that the payment scheme of the GPL is not a very egalitarian idea; for it treats users differently, and discriminates those who don't share the FSF's definition of "software freedom".

In the long run, the more libraries use GPL3, the less attractive is a port of Photoshop (or any other closed-source applications) to Linux. As a result, users will pay the final price: Either because their are required to use a additional, completely non-free operating system, or because they have to pay Adobe and others for the development of the additional libraries.


This is correct. Stallman's goal is a completely free OS with applications. He does not want an OS with proprietary applications.

I'm not sure that Stallman is right. It seems better to have an OS which can be used for everything, not only Free Software.

There are many things wrong with that theory.

First, the vast majority of libraries are licensed under the LGPL, and not the GPL, so the point is likely moot.

Second, you shouldn't single out version 3 of the GPL in that example. A library licensed under GPLv2 would have the same effect.

Third, why on earth would Adobe use a copyleft library for Photoshop? I'm pretty sure they would use their own libraries, or libraries not under a copyleft license (or a limited copyleft license, such as the LGPL).

Finally, if Adobe *really* wanted to use that rare beast which is a GPLed library, they could always ask the authors to relicense it to them.



Again, there are many misconceptions in this paragraph. Users are not treated differently because of the GPL, but because of copyright law. Copyright has no effect on *use* of software, only in its copying and subsequent redistribution (hence the "copy" in "copyright"). The GPL, which is based on copyright law, could not dictate to users how they could use the software. They can, however, dictate conditions on redistribution, because the GPL grants additional rights compared to normal "fair use" rights as stipulated by copyright law.

Second, the GPL doesn't discriminate about anyone. It applies equally to all, irregardless of one's beliefs about software freedom. That's because it is a legal document, and sets conditions for redistribution of the copyrighted material. Someone could disagree with RMS, and think the FSF are a bunch of kooks, and he would still have the *exact* same rights as a diehard FSF fan with regards to a GPLed piece of software.

Therefore, contrary to what you claim, the GPL is *very* egalitarian, because it ensures that the code and its derivatives will be distributed with the same freedoms as the ones desired by the original author(s). Does the GPL curtail the freedom of those who want to produce closed-source derivatives? Indeed it does. But it also protects the rights of the original copyright holder about what can be done with the code, and therefore protect the author's freedom from having their IP be used for closed-source software.

This is why the GPL is as free as, say, the BSDL, but in a different way - because freedom is *never* absolute, and in order to guarantee some freedoms, you need to curtail other freedoms (as someone pointed out, to guarantee the freedom to live, you have to curtail the freedom to murder).

"This is why the GPL is as free as, say, the BSDL, but in a different way - because freedom is *never* absolute, and in order to guarantee some freedoms, you need to curtail other freedoms (as someone pointed out, to guarantee the freedom to live, you have to curtail the freedom to murder)."

That's right and that's why many people will prefer microsoft, because it is much easier to use than linux and yet available on most x86 computers and other people will favor Apple which has even more restrictions because they feel it works better than anything. they also see Apple as a strike back against Microsoft because to them OS choice is more important than hardware choice or source code availability

Thank God for the few sane people left on Earth, what with everybody out there digging themselves in trenches. The article from the BSD community talks about some drastic 'effects' the GPL 3 might have on their projects. Excuse me, but how exactly does GPL 3 affect their kernel or userland? The GNU toolchain for instance, how does it affect the code created by using it? I think they will still be free to license their code under their will, just as they were in case of GPL 2.

People who are talking about GPL 3 as if it were some calamity were any way against GPL in general. They are just sharpening their saws. And among the anti-GPL3 comments, was one made by a person who is against free software in general! I wonder which of the BSD lovers modded him up.

I am license neutral just as the parent (and I am in favour of logical criticism). Just a small observation though. The new GPL 3 take away freedoms from the developer but gives more to the user (the user is able to modify and run code on embedded systems using GPL 3 for instance), hence it's claim to be a 'free' license.

Both the GPL and the BSD camps (as well as other license camps) have produced excellent code. And they have coexisted, and they always will. If you don't like GPL, don't use it. And if you have never liked it, no use raising your voices now, you have your alternatives.

Edited 2007-06-30 00:40

"Excuse me, but how exactly does GPL 3 affect their kernel or userland?"

In no regards, of course. An effect might occur for GPLed parts of the BSD OS which move from GPLv2 to GPLv3, maybe... The kernel is BSDL and stays BSDL, but there "still" are GPLed parts in the userland, such as /usr/bin/info.

"The GNU toolchain for instance, how does it affect the code created by using it? I think they will still be free to license their code under their will, just as they were in case of GPL 2."

I think so, too.

"I wonder which of the BSD lovers modded him up."

BSDL licensed software is free software par excellence.

"I am license neutral just as the parent. Both the GPL and the BSD camps (as well as other license camps) have produced excellent code."

Just as a sidenote, there are licenses that are similar to both GPL and BSDL (I think the Mozilla project uses such a license) and there's still the option to dual-license source code as long as there's no conflict by content.

"And they have coexisted, and they always will. If you don't like GPL, don't use it."

If a developer decides what to do with his source code (hide it, make it GPLv2/v3, BSDL or his own license), he is - of course - free in his decision as long as possible conclusions from a prior license apply (GPLv2 for instance). And it's completely okay for a developer to decide if and in which way his work may be a base for other developers, or even if a company may benefit and profit from his work (such as the BSDL allows).

"And if you never liked it, no use raising your voices now, you have your alternatives."

The alternatives to GPLv2 always existed and keep existing while GPLv3 is ready for use.

As you said: If you don't like it - don't use it.

I may add: Use the right tool for every task. Decide by yourself. Judge from and educated and healthy background.

The GPLv3 is an important license, and it will surely be able to help developing further great free software.