Nearly a year after the Free Software Foundation released an updated version of the General Public License - the GPLv3 - there appears to be a great deal of confusion about what the license actually means, if one goes by two recent publications.

In one case, this is due to the ignorance of the writer and I have already dealt with it in detail; in the second, it appears to be a wilful misinterpretation of the conditions imposed by the GPLv3, for reasons best known to the author.

No matter what the reason, Edmund J. Walsh, a lawyer based in Boston, has made some claims about the GPLv3 that do merit some comment.

Walsh starts out by saying that for-profit companies should re-evaluate the ways in which they use free and open source software because of what he calls recent developments - the release of the GPLv3 (released last July, 11 months ago) and cases filed against four companies for GPL violations (this occurred in December 2007, six months ago - and all the cases have been settled out of court).

More Here