I’m considering EUPL: EUPL - a better choice for European citizens? - #23 by vlap
But it has a few downsides as this article exemplifies.
The fact that you have to write such a article says something. There are always FSF / GPL people who will seek ways to include code under their umbrella.
This means that even this is not allowed, you may end up as a software maintainer with a EUPL license to be a policemen, telling people who wants your code to become GPL, that this is a license infringement.
For some code, where you’re feeling relax/lax about, that might not be a huge problem, but for other project it might be. It will cost you time and energy at least.
The advantage of GPL is that it’s more clear. It doesn’t have compatible licenses which can convert your GPL code to something else. At least if you pick GPL2 or GPL3, if you choose LGPL, people can take it and turn it into GPL. Yeah, that’s a constant when you’ve to deal with the FSF it seems. There is only one right license in their book and that isn’t LGPL or EUPL.
Anyway, when considering GPL, I’ve read part of the discussion (Linux mailinglist about dual license, via wikipedia) with Linus Torvalds where he explains why he thinks GPL2 is a better license then GPL3. I think the main argument is that GPL3 is overreaching (makes statements not only about software, but also hardware). I think I agree with this, also when you see how FSF reacts to the EUPL license (by suggesting a copyright infringement).
So what could be downsides of choosing GPL2 above GPL3 these days?