Yes and no: the part clarifying what happens when one does not comply with the GPL is &quot;objectively better&quot;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.<p>I&#x27;d say that &quot;most parts&quot; 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&#x27;d still give credit for the rest.<p>1. I&#x27;m using objectively in a sense that I hope is colloquially understandable, if philosophically wrong.