gpl2 gpl3区别
While news reports are projecting a new General Public License from the Free Software Foundation in 2007 – I believe they are missing the key point in the exercise. This is largely being debated in the open source community rather than written quietly in the board room.
虽然新闻报道预计将在2007年获得自由软件基金会的新通用公共许可证 ，但我认为它们仍缺少这项工作的重点。 在很大程度上，这是在开源社区中进行的辩论，而不是在董事会会议室中悄悄地写。
More importantly, open source users can have an impact by sounding off on concerns and requests about open source licensing. This again is a reminder of how open source is done today. We would not be where we are without community input including developers, testers, documentation warriors and evangelizers (my own word!).
更重要的是，开源用户可以通过消除对开源许可的担忧和要求来产生影响。 这再次提醒我们今天开源的方式。 如果没有社区的参与，包括开发人员，测试人员，文档编制人员和宣传人员(我自己说的话！)，我们就不会成为我们的家。
The GPL, by far the most popular, has not been updated in nearly 14 years. It has a decade of corporate and small business evolution to adapt to as well as a wealth of intellectual property (IP) philosophy. Perhaps more importantly is the fact that Linux is now being considered an enterprise solution alongside commercial platforms drives the need for a license that provides flexibility. This capability will need to address the minions of developers goals as well as those of recently converted senior technology managers from Wall Street to Main Street who seek to integrate open source into legacy architectures.
迄今为止最受欢迎的GPL在近14年内没有更新。 它已经适应了十年的公司和小型企业发展，并拥有丰富的知识产权(IP)哲学。 也许更重要的是，Linux与商业平台一起被视为企业解决方案，这推动了对提供灵活性的许可证的需求。 此功能将需要解决开发人员的目标以及从华尔街到主街的最近转换的高级技术经理的目标，他们寻求将开放源代码集成到旧架构中。
Having operated in both worlds – I can assure readers that big corporate dollars are willing to be spent on open source – however – the hesitation arises from licensing. Like them or not – commercial licenses may tie down some users but they are also crystal clear and in most cases unambiguous. Many have difficulty adjusting their mindset to the idea of code floating about being modified that in some views appears as technical risk.
在两个方面都运作过之后-我可以向读者保证，大公司的钱都愿意花在开放源代码上-但是-犹豫是源于许可。 不管喜欢与否，商业许可证可能会束缚某些用户，但它们也非常清晰，并且在大多数情况下是明确的。 许多人很难调整自己的思维方式，以适应浮动代码的想法，因为修改代码在某些情况下似乎会带来技术风险。
Convincing those fence sitters is our job – and a new GPL that addresses IP in some form or fashion (as we know this is a debate in and of itself), permanence in the event of license revocation by a developer and re-distribution in mixed open source/commercial products will go a long way to reduce concern.
说服那些围墙保姆是我们的工作–一个新的GPL以某种形式或方式解决IP问题(我们知道这本身就是一场辩论)，如果开发者撤销了许可证并在混合发行时重新分配，则永久保留开源/商业产品将大大减少人们的担忧。
It is in our best interests to follow the evolution of the GPL in 2006, put in our two cents and continue to encourage our clients to consider open source where relevant. After all – it truly has emerged that it is about the service, support and continued customization over a long relationship moreso than selling an initial piece of software or license. I know the Free Software Foundation wants software to be free – yet – we can market our expertise in modifying, deploying and operating those applications and platforms.
遵循2006年GPL的发展，投入我们的2美分并继续鼓励我们的客户在相关时考虑开源，符合我们的最大利益。 毕竟，与销售最初的软件或许可证相比，与长期的服务关系，服务和支持以及持续的定制化确实已成为现实。 我知道自由软件基金会希望软件免费-但是-我们可以在修改，部署和操作这些应用程序和平台方面推销我们的专业知识。
However, that is very likely yet another discussion.
但是，这很有可能是另一场讨论。
翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/gpl-3-expected-in-2007/
gpl2 gpl3区别
