> I can offer a proprietary license to the clients for the software in situations they dis-like GPL v3
This is how business works for codes like Qt and Odoo. They didn't choose [AL]GPLv3+ for the software to be free, but (or along with), for the reason that it would benefit them. The same tactic may be used by Canonical (Ubuntu) for their code like Mir, Unity, and other codes with CLA in the near future.
For me, GPLv3 gives the following additional protection:
* Patent protection from the authors (for their own patents that are used in the software)
* More freedom (Eg: A router with GPLv2 Linux + Busybox is simply open source, not free software. That is, you can get the source code of those Linux + Busybox. But the router company may not give you a way to modify the software bundled with the router. GPLv3 protects the users against such locks).
* Easier distribution requirement. If a user asks for source code of some GPLv2 code in a CD or some other offline media, the developer is obliged to (of course the developer can ask for its expenses). for a GPLv3+ code, it is enough to be hosted online/emailed.
Agreed your point. That is kind of the reason why I'm reluctant to use the GPLV2. If you distribute my software I want you to also honor the license agreement and release your resulting source code. In other words everyone has a gun pointed at each other head's and it keeps everyone honest.
There are current ongoing issues with GPLV2 with router, ip camera's and some other big named businesses that have bundled open source software but have not honored the license agreement and released or make publicly available those modifications. In doing so they're in breach of the license agreement and considering they're a commercial entity the copyright holders should rightly so be compensated.
You can take the chance and be the `nice` guy and release your source code under a BSD or GPLv2 license though with anything open source don't be surprised if you find your work inside a Toyota with your email address.
This is how business works for codes like Qt and Odoo. They didn't choose [AL]GPLv3+ for the software to be free, but (or along with), for the reason that it would benefit them. The same tactic may be used by Canonical (Ubuntu) for their code like Mir, Unity, and other codes with CLA in the near future.
For me, GPLv3 gives the following additional protection:
* Patent protection from the authors (for their own patents that are used in the software)
* More freedom (Eg: A router with GPLv2 Linux + Busybox is simply open source, not free software. That is, you can get the source code of those Linux + Busybox. But the router company may not give you a way to modify the software bundled with the router. GPLv3 protects the users against such locks).
* Easier distribution requirement. If a user asks for source code of some GPLv2 code in a CD or some other offline media, the developer is obliged to (of course the developer can ask for its expenses). for a GPLv3+ code, it is enough to be hosted online/emailed.