Quoting Zac Bowling (zac at zacbowling.com): > People are still releasing software under GPLv2 and will not or cannot > upgrade to GPLv3 (such is the case with the Linux kernel which can't > be changed to GPLv3 without securing the approval of every single > contributor that ever sent a patch in). I contest your premise, and point you to Catherine and Eric Raymond's explanation about why this widely held view is incorrect: http://catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#id2852366