Some time ago I did a post and expressed my opinion regarding a possible outcome of the anti-DRM provisions of the GPL3 license. I got some feedback that made me think I was not clear enough.

My observation is this - the fewer restrictions that a piece of software has, the more "valuable" it becomes. The example I used was music. You can buy music that is unrestricted by DRM from iTunes, and it costs more.

So my point was, that same thinking could make GPL2 licensed software more valuable to some users than GPL3, because GPL2 doesn't say anything about DRM. So if you want to use DRM software with software licensed under GPL2, you could. But not with software licensed under GPL3. So in this case, software licensed under GPL2 is more "valuable".

I don't think this will be a big deal to most people who plan to use OSS, so this may be mostly a "what if" exercise. And as our GPL3 site suggests, there is lot of evidence that OSS project teams are moving toward GPL3 regardless.