It's only "better" if you philosophically agree with its imposed restrictions on the code. I for example happen to agree with Linus arguments against v3. For example, the clause against "tivoization". If you believe tivoization is wrong, then yes v3 is better, otherwise it is not.

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

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.

My favourite part of the GPLv2 is the torrent technicality[0]. I wonder if all those people seeding Linux distributions realise they're violating the license.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#BitTorrent

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

Are we reading the same thing? It says:

> The best way to make sure you are in compliance when distributing GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include all the corresponding source in the same torrent

Not a link to the source, the source code itself.

I'm two lines down.

> section 6(e) of GPLv3 is designed to give distributors—people who initially seed torrents—a clear and straightforward way to provide the source, _by telling recipients where it is available on a public network server._ This ensures that everyone who wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the distributor.

That paragraph has no relevancy to the GPLv2, it is pointing out how they fixed the problem in version 3.

The Linux kernel is still licensed under GPLv2.

The differences between v2 and v3 is the entire context of this thread, so I believe you're deliberately being obtuse.

Can we backport some of those features to GPLv2? GNU may not have an interest in that, but presumably we don't need GNU's permission to create a "GPL2.5" like license?

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.