@lanodan >see BSDs having to seek alternatives to GNU Software after GPLv3 relicensing
Ah, the BSDs at it again, including proprietary malware and then complaining that they can't make derivative works of GPLv3'd works with the proprietary mess, rather than just not including the proprietary malware.

I guess the BSDs can't help themselves but do everything possible to ensure the users don't have freedom?


Actually, I'm not really sure if there are any actually used licenses, proprietary or otherwise that are compatible with the GPLv2, but not the GPLv3, so the re-licensing claim doesn't make much sense (maybe there are some licenses that wouldn't be compatible with the GPLv2 if it wasn't for a clause that stated the the GPLv2's terms win and that clause doesn't apply to the GPLv3, but the usage of such licenses are very rare and tend to be isolated).