Yes and no: the part clarifying what happens when one does not comply with the GPL is "objectively better"¹, since it clarifies a legal situation otherwise subj

Yes and no: the part clarifying what happens when one does not comply with the GPL is "objectively better"¹, since it clarifies a legal situation otherwise subject to multiple interpretations. Similarly the clarifications with regard to software distribution, which are enhanced compared to a license written in 1991. I'd say that "most parts" of the GPLv3 are clearer than the GPLv2: of course one is free to argue that the patent clause and the anti-tivoization clause offset these improvements, but I'd still give credit for the rest. 1. I'm using objectively in a sense that I hope is colloquially understandable, if philosophically wrong.