Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for

Well, I don't think I agree with him and would licence GPL code with the "or later" clause, but he has a very reasonable and convincing argument against it. See this video of him explaining his take on GPLv3 and the "or later" clause at Deb Conf if you are interested: ▶ this video

Here is an excellent video of Linus talking about why he specifically chose the GPLv2 and how he felt betrayed when the FSF released GPLv3: ▶ this video

Keep in mind that Linux doesn’t use the GPL3 and stuck with the GPL2 since the maintainers and Linus Torvalds thought that it was overly restrictive [1]. So at some point the license friction becomes too large to be practical for organizations to use or contribute to. [1] ▶ this video

It's not that simple. In the email you have linked to, he does not support tivoization. He simply says that he finds the term offensive (which is really funny coming from him). Torvalds has also publicly stated that he doesn't think that tivoization benefits users, but it's not his battle to fight. More info on that topic can be found in the linked YT (linked at the precise time he is answering the question about tivoization, but the whole video is about GPL v2 vs GPL v3). YT video: ▶ this video

It is also GPL 2 - not "GPL 2 or later" so it can't be relicensed to a future version that has additional or different terms. Linus on GPL 3: Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for ▶ this video

Sure, the GPL deal was pretty simple. You can use the code, but if you change it, you need to make the code available with changes also under the GPL. This drove a fair bit of collaboration. Each developer however could then make whatever they wanted with this code, and the GPL didn't control how you used the code in your project. So you could make a car, and GPL software based control module could have a rev limiter in it. Others could also build cars using your code, BUT there was no requirement that USERS of your product be able to modify your product to for example get around the rev limiter or whatever. This was battled out in part via the Tivo case, but was also just the normal readers understanding of the GPL. This gave rise to the GPLv3 - which has the anti-tivoization clause in it. THAT version does say that you have to provide unlock codes etc etc. This ended up NOT being popular with the folks actually writing code. What's happened though is that EFF / SFC have started to try and falsely claim that the GPLv2 is also like the GPLv3 - which is ironic because people DIDN'T want the GPLv3 over these issues in part. link for an article and ▶ this video for Linus's take on the GPLv3 in general. The latest tactic, because they can't get developers to go down the (A)GPLv3 path is to try and create a right that would allow them to sue everyone as activists even though they didn't write any code themselves. That would then let them put their own interpretations of all of this.

I like Linus's response for GPL v3. [0] GPL v2 was good. Version 3 is a little over. In practice enterprises avoid using everything licensed under GPL v3 (e.g. Apple freezing Mac OS's Bash veraion), that blocks innovation cause good software usually backed by large amount of budget, especially those with GUI, like Windows, Android, Microsoft Office, Chrome etc. [0]: ▶ this video

This echoes of the kind of v3 fuckery Linus Torvalds complained about in his GPLv3 objection recorded at DebConf '14. [0] I'm a long-time Free/Libre software user and advocate, but "if the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term." strikes me as a very strange thing for the license to include. The copyright holder clearly has the authority to use whatever licensing terms they wish. If they added restrictions, this clause is in direct conflict with their intentions. Of course the court sided with the plaintiff. I don't understand what the FSF was trying to do here, it seems obviously underhanded like Torvalds touches upon in[0]. [0] ▶ this video

There has been relatively high levels of support for normal / standard GPLv2 enforcement. That said, the FSF and Conservancy like to pick more edge cases and go to absolute war on them. That doesn't generate as much support it is true and a lot of parts of the GPLv3 push also rubbed folks the wrong way. "Linus says says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for" ▶ this video is but one of many many examples here.

You can watch a few conference talks where folks really go to town on Linus for his bad behavior. On GPLv3 lots of calls for Linus to stop supporting GPLv2 "How do we get you to stop..." ▶ this video And the list goes on and on. That said, his decisions seem to have worked out amazingly well. At some point I can imagine getting tired at having to repeatedly defend your views.

I think this is true, with the MIT license being the most popular. From Linus[1] on the topic of GPLv3, he chose GPLv2 as it was the best choice for doing kernel development - giving code and getting code back in return. One of his gripes about GPLv3, IIRC, was the 'Tivoization'[2] additions. He felt it was going too far the other way. [1] ▶ this video [2] link

> it was a resounding no according to Linus' very public rant at a Debconf a few years back This one? ▶ this video