Again, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different licences, they are not compatible, a piece of GPLv2 code with the 'or later' clause is only compatible with GPLv3 because it allows itself to be relicenced to GPLv3.
So obviously GPLv2 without the 'or later' clause is incompatible with GPLv3, as it can't be relicenced to GPLv3.
I was wondering why the FSF designed licenses that aren't compatible. For example, why shouldn't I be allowed to mix GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code and have them licensed separately? A company like TiVo would be allowed to use the GPLv2 code from my source tree much as they would be allowed to by getting it from upstream just as before. They'd be unable to use the GPLv3 code from my source tree much as they would not be allowed to from an upstream source. The end user will still be allowed to get the source and modify for their own use if they see fit, so no freedoms are revoked there. The only purpose of this restriction of freedom (particularly of the developer) is to give FSF leverage in their philosophical agenda.
My personal preference regarding licences are BSD/MIT/LGPL for component/framework/library code, GPL for 'complete' projects, but as always that is just a subjective preference, it's no more the 'truth' than any other preference out there.
It is because you make this mistake concerning exactly whose freedom the GPL is aimed at keeping is why you make this error of judgement about "GPL nazis to struggle about politics". If the original authors of the software had intended to give later developers freedom to do what they wanted, the original code would not have been licensed under the GPL in the first place, but rather some other license such as BSD. No, the original authors wanted to keep the code forever free and open, for the maximum ongoing benefit of the end users. It is not meant to be a free smorgasboard of code for downstream developers to feast upon.
Here is a link which might make this clearer for you:
The fact that you made this mistake about exactly who was supposed to have the freedoms under the GPL, and you are complaining now about the GPL license of this software and how it prevents developers now from doing whatever they want, is actually a good testament to just how effective the GPL license is at keeping the freedom for end users, which after all is the actual intent of the GPL license.“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.
Last edited by hal2k1; 01-25-2013 at 02:36 AM.