It is reported at http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6099985.html
Linus Torvalds has sharply criticised GPLv3 draft terms as "inferior"
Several elements in the GPLv3 draft unfortunately make it plain that
the shift is from "freedom" to "slavery", "hate" and
"fear". If the
GPLv3 ever comes into effect with such terms, it may even make
non-free licenses look very respectable.
I recently modified the licensing terms of the Calpp project that I am
maintaining, so that modifications to the Calpp code base would be
only under GPLv2 until further notice, to ensure a comfortable level
of freedom for its developers and users.
The most important reason why most people appreciate the GPL are the
0: freedom to run the program, for any purpose
1: freedom to study how the program works with source code and adapt
it to your use
2: freedom to redistribute copies and
3: freedom to improve and release improvements to the public.
The GPLv2 has implemented the freedoms as license conditions giving
rights to licensees to enjoy the freedoms listed above, and has not
only stood the test of time, but has created a good ecosystem of free
software where developers, users, businesses and governments have
GPLv3 should ideally be towards giving better rights to developers and
licensees to make the freedoms more effectively usable and enjoyable.
Many clauses in the draft GPLv3 are unintelligible and ambigious,
giving open invitations for interpretations. Having provisions for
"additional terms" would make the GPL a non-standard license, and even
worse, they would only help to curtail rights and make the freedoms
If the GPLv3 mission is alter the well known freedoms 0 to 3
substantially, then it is fairly important to discuss that in the
first place, before the actual license terms are discussed.
It is premature to discuss the GPLv3 draft, without arriving at a
broad consensus on what fixes are required to the basic freedoms
enjoyed by developers and licensees. I would request RMS and the FSF
to first make a restatement of freedoms 0 to 3 before proceeding
further with the GPLv3 process.
In India, most of the criticism about the GPL has been about making
the freedoms more practically available by making the GPL more
Many have asked if the GPL violates the "Rule against Perpetuity"
Most GPLed software is freely available for download by the public
from the Internet, and therefore, the terms in the GPLv2 that ensure
perpetuity for public benefit, advancement of knowledge, commerce and
other benefits to mankind make it valid and enforceable. This issue
in fact holds the key to the future progress of the GPL. Focus and
attention on the public nature of code contributions and examining
ways and means to strengthen the distribution of computer programs and
modifications on the Internet with better licensing conditions should
help. If the GPLv3 draft process ignores real issues, and side-tracks
into the private domain, it may just end up there, as a self-defeating
meaningless exercise for all of us.