It's nice to see the early FUD against GPLv3 being dropped and dropped in a way where copyright holders end up adopting some of the benefits of the GPLv3. But

It's nice to see the early FUD against GPLv3 being dropped and dropped in a way where copyright holders end up adopting some of the benefits of the GPLv3. But there's an easier way to go about this: Want the more lenient termination policy of GPLv3? Relicense under 'GPLv3 or later' or 'AGPLv3 or later' and let your users know that they're getting this in writing in a meaningful and not capriciously-dropped way. Businesses (such as those ostensibly agreeing to the terms of this voluntary arrangement) wouldn't settle for less if this were a work you held the copyright which they wanted to license. Users deserve to be treated fairly and as partners in the endeavor and the GPLv3 does a good job of that by looking out for a user's interests. Don't buy into the business-first viewpoint from which this article is written. That is to be expected of the narrow view corporate media gives us. The issue here affects anyone who distributes GPLv2 or LGPLv2.x-licensed works where any of these parties are a copyright holder.