>>108804167
GPLv3 prevents tivoization (hardware DRM).
it makes sense from a kernel perspective to keep GPLv2 because industries that contribute to the kernel have very strong incentives to put hardware lockdowns (android, smart tvs, cars, iot, etc..). GPLv3 also has a clause on software patents and has a stronger legal wording (but both licenses are enforceable)

if you're just making software, GPLv3 should be the default. you should use version 2 only if you have special use cases that require hardware lockdowns on users.

>>108804167
>Is GPLv2 superior to GPv3?
Yes it is, GPLv2 gives you more freedom

>>108804726
>it makes sense from a kernel perspective to keep GPLv2 because industries that contribute to the kernel have very strong incentives to put hardware lockdowns
That's prime reason for NOT using GPLv2. Why would you want your code to be used to lock down users?

>>108804726
>it makes sense from a kernel perspective to keep GPLv2 because industries that contribute to the kernel
translation:
>It makes sense to bend over and take it from hardware monopolies
translation (from cuck-speak):
>I'm a cuck

>>108805431
GNUcks literally argue that less freedom good more freedom bad

>>108805431
>Is GPLv2 superior to GPv3?
>Yes it is, GPLv2 gives you more freedom

It gives hardware companies the freedom to take away users freedom by not letting them change the software on their devices, and using your gplv2 code to power that anti freedom machine.

>>108804726
>if you're just making software, GPLv3 should be the default.
AGPLv3 or later is the best license.

>>108806374
>GPLv4
>you can only use this software in systems that support Ukraine
>:O

>>108806409
>or later
Only. You can't trust the FSF to remain safe against capture forever.

>>108806461
hmm, that's actually a fair point. I guess then it's AGPL v3 only

>>108806445
GPL licenses have always been written from the perspective of the user and ensuring freedom for them. If you are a developer and want no restrictions on what you can do with the code, you should avoid copyleft licenses altogether. If you are a developer and don't care large companies use your code and make it proprietary and contribute nothing back, you should also just use a pushover license.

Your comment makes no sense whatsoever since it violates freedom 0 of the Free software definition and criteria 5 and possibly 6 of the open-source definition. This would make the license non-free and proprietary.

>>108806660
Not being able to run the code on certain hardware the doesn't allow modification of the code also violates freeom 0 in the case of GPL3, as does not being able to run the code on your own servers in case of AGPL without providing the source code even though you're just running the software.
Freetards are unironically mentally ill and oblivious to their own cult's basic commandments.

youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU

>>108806792
You can run the code on anything. Not being able to redistribute it preinstalled on a system where it is not possible to run a modified version of the program is the restriction. The license only strengthens freedom 0 and 1 as it allows you to run the program (modified) as you wish on the hardware it came shipped on.

In the case of AGPL, it does muddy the waters a bit. Still, the user is the one who benefits from it and doesn't become at the mercy of the service provider. Freedom for the user is still the goal and it makes sure users won't get locked in services and their software doesn't get turned into a proprietary server where the SaaS provider doesn't have to distribute their modifications to the users.