Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 JULY 2007

Free Software Foundation Publishes GPL Version 3

Cooley LLP
Explore more from Cooley LLP

On June 29, 2007, the Free Software Foundation (“FSF”) published version 3 of the GNU General Public License (“GPLv3”). GPLv3 is a complete rewrite of version 2 of the GPL (“GPLv2”), which is the most popular “open source” or “free software” license.

United StatesIntellectual Property
John Brockland
John Brockland
Adam Ruttenberg
Adam Ruttenberg
Charles Schwab
Charles Schwab
Author LinkedIn connections

On June 29, 2007, the Free Software Foundation ("FSF") published version 3 of the GNU General Public License ("GPLv3"). GPLv3 is a complete rewrite of version 2 of the GPL ("GPLv2"), which is the most popular "open source" or "free software" license. Spanning fourteen pages in length, GPLv3 requires careful review and consideration by companies deciding whether to adopt GPLv3 for their own code or whether to use or distribute code covered by GPLv3.

After several weeks since publication, the level of adoption of GPLv3 is still evolving, and its ultimate impact remains to be seen. As of July 23, 2007, 212 GPLv2 projects had converted to GPLv3, in contrast to 2,837 projects that continue to be licensed under GPLv2, according to software risk management solutions provider Palamida, Inc., and important projects, such as the Linux kernel, appear unlikely to adopt GPLv3 any time soon. While the circumstances of each company and project should dictate decisions about GPLv3, this Alert identif

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

PTAB/USPTO Update - October 2026

The USPTO has released new templates and guidance for AIA trial proceedings, announced key appointments including a Chief AI Officer, and published updated procedures for patent applications and subject matter eligibility declarations. Director Squires delivered multiple addresses emphasizing the constitutional importance of intellectual property rights while the agency expanded its community engagement efforts and international collaboration through WIPO's Global IP Assignment Platform pilot program.
United StatesIntellectual Property
WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein