From f07e7d4716bd3bcc27b5b9357171693acaf9f6a8 2018-07-02 14:04:26 From: Bradley M. Kuhn Date: 2018-07-02 14:04:26 Subject: [PATCH] first draft: completed Historical Background section --- diff --git a/gpl-installation.tex b/gpl-installation.tex index b4c958f0c145e1d536132c57ffe4a1534a68d5da..5ea9bd02fcead433e5f7b507e10391082288ae92 100644 --- a/gpl-installation.tex +++ b/gpl-installation.tex @@ -201,6 +201,15 @@ We now see the same process happening, albeit much more slowly, with GPLv3. We hear rhetoric drawing attention to perceived differences between GPLv2's and GPLv3's requirements, which seem untenable to firms, some of whom maintain GPLv2'd forks of projects that have moved on to the -``GPLv3-or-later'' upstream. +``GPLv3-or-later'' upstream. It is our view that if firms give some +attention to the history of ``slow but sure'' adoption of copyleft licenses, +after careful study of the compliance requirements, that GPLv3 requirements +can become as acceptable as the GPLv2 requirements already are. This paper +provides analysis, guidance and explanation of a set of specific terms in +GPLv3 that some firms have declared untenable: GPLv3's updated Installation +Information requirements. It is our hope that this detailed analysis will +replace rumor and supposition about GPLv3 requirements with cool-headed +consideration of the trade-offs between avoiding GPLv3 and meeting those +requirements --- just as firms did in the late 1990s with GPLv2. \end{document}