I am with Stallman on this one, software should be "GPL3+ and later".
The only difference between GPL2 and GPL3 is tivization exploit fix - a fix to license exploit that allowed to close down the platform, preventing GPL2 freedoms to be used anyway.
Any developer that prefers "GPL2" over "GPL3" essentially needs that exploit and wants to produce closed source product.
In this case, these people should really use BSD license instead.
Originally Posted by uid313
Some of these silly decisions (by RMS, FSF and the GNU project) really harm free software.
It is vice versa.
People that use freedom granting license refuse to actually provide these freedoms, because their scheme is based on exploitation of the older version of the license.
And some program called GRASS? http://grass.osgeo.org/
It's likely the most used program mentioned in this article.
"GRASS GIS, commonly referred to as GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System), is a free Geographic Information System (GIS) software used for geospatial data management and analysis, image processing, graphics/maps production, spatial modeling, and visualization. GRASS GIS is currently used in academic and commercial settings around the world, as well as by many governmental agencies and environmental consulting companies."
It's the premier open source GIS solution, originally developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and now used by many governments around the world..
This is a shame. Open Source licences should support free software, not restrict it(s developers).
Unfortunately it's typical for GPL nazis to struggle about politics instead of just getting their things done (Hurd?).