GPL3 will be inherently incompatible with the version it replaces, but according to Tridge that is less of a concern than having a static licence which is rendered obsolete by changing laws.

"GPL3 delighted me and I hope more people choose it for the right reasons, not the wrong reasons," Tridge said, adding open source projects are in danger if they are complacent and stay with old licences because laws governing their validity continue to change.

Tridge said the GPL is aimed at ensuring the "chain" of software rights from developer to user is not diluted because it allows direct contact with the work's author.

"DRM can be used as an impediment to rights and patents may prevent distribution," he said.

While conceding the GPL is not for everyone, Tridge said the fact that more people are thinking about the licence they use and software vendors can still run proprietary applications on GPL-licensed operating systems.

Some projects, include the Linux kernel, intend to stay with GPL2 in the immediate term, but Tridge is confident most projects will convert to version three over time.

"The Samba project intends to move to GPLv3 quickly after it is released," he said. "We've been following the development of GPLv3 closely, and think that it suits us very well."

A panel session was then held at the event, with nine members of the open source and legal communities discussing how GPL3 can be enhanced.

One popular idea was to make GPL3 clearer to understand and an "abridged" or summarized version which would be good for the community.

Not adding to the complexity of the document was also suggested because the licence is lengthy and nobody has discovered a way to reduce it yet.

Moglen praised the efforts of all international contributors to GPL3 but did say the licence represents the FSF's own mission and its development is not a process of consensus legislation.