@@ -191,25 +191,30 @@ misunderstood, and sometimes outright ignored.
Historically, firms have often reacted to the two popular versions of the GPL
in the same pattern. During the feverish anti-copyleft rhetoric of the
1990s, firms widely considered the GPLv2 as a toxic license they could not
abide. Eventually, executives and lawyers at major firms learned what their
engineers often already knew: that GPLv2 was not unreasonable, its
requirements were well understood and could be respected by businesses that
produced both FLOSS and proprietary products.
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. 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.
\section{GPLv2 Installation Requirements}
As discussed in the previous section, firms have generally been completely
comfortable
\end{document}