GPLv3 has many, many improvements over GPLv2. In fact, there are several improvements that should make it _more_ favourable to companies:
1. The terms of section 8 (termination) are much "nicer" to people who make mistakes and infringe on the terms of the GPLv3. GPLv2 was very hard-line, and in principle the revocation of rights was immediate. This is something that companies should _like_ about GPLv3.
2. The text is written to be far similar to a legal document (GPLv2 uses non-standard formatting especially with regards to how definitions of terms are done), which makes it easier for lawyers to understand and argue about the license.
3. It is compatible with Apache-2.0 now, by having a patent protection clause that is similar to Apache-2.0 (but of course it's copyleft) -- most notably it only affects contributors (which includes people who distribution verbatim and modified works). Using the program doesn't add any patent requirements (other than the Apache-2.0-like patent revocation system).
4. The "tivoisation" clauses that people like to make a fuss over actually only state two key things. First, it states that no software licensed under GPLv3 "shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure" -- which effectively means that the DMCA cannot apply to GPLv3 licensed programs (this is good for both users and companies). Second, one of the requirements is that you must distribute tools and instructions (this includes things like keys if appropriate) for changing the software on a system. This second requirement may seem onerous, but it actually doesn't require you to ship the hardware signing keys if you have a way to disable the hardware signing (or a way to replace the signing keys without needing the original keys). This is also good for companies that buy hardware that has GPLv3 software (but it does place some additional burden on companies that ship said software).
While (4) might cause some angst, there are other very useful features of the GPLv3 that you seem to be ignoring. Not to mention you didn't actually specify what the issue you're talking about is. I presume it's got to do with the "tivoisation" clause, but that clause is not the most important part of GPLv3.
Not to mention that, depending who you ask, there is a "tivoisation" clause in GPLv2. In particular, GPLv2 states that "for an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" (emphasis mine). Personally "the scripts used to control [...] installation" could include instructions on how to install an executable on a piece of hardware you've sold me (if that hardware has DRM, you have to tell me how to install the executable despite the DRM). This is still not entirely agreed upon in in the GPL conformance community (the SFC has not explicitly stated which way they go on this one either).
The question is not how many "improvements" GPLv3 has, as long as there exists any single clause which makes it incompatible with the business, it is ruled out as a base of operations.
> GPLv3 basically killed all momentum and it wasn't because GPLv3 was better. At least not from a business point of view.
I was pointing out that this is not entirely correct. There are quite important improvements in GPLv3 that are "better" from a business point of view. Very few businesses care about the "tivoisation clause", and some businesses may actually benefit from not having to worry about being provided GPLvX software that they can't modify.
1. The terms of section 8 (termination) are much "nicer" to people who make mistakes and infringe on the terms of the GPLv3. GPLv2 was very hard-line, and in principle the revocation of rights was immediate. This is something that companies should _like_ about GPLv3.
2. The text is written to be far similar to a legal document (GPLv2 uses non-standard formatting especially with regards to how definitions of terms are done), which makes it easier for lawyers to understand and argue about the license.
3. It is compatible with Apache-2.0 now, by having a patent protection clause that is similar to Apache-2.0 (but of course it's copyleft) -- most notably it only affects contributors (which includes people who distribution verbatim and modified works). Using the program doesn't add any patent requirements (other than the Apache-2.0-like patent revocation system).
4. The "tivoisation" clauses that people like to make a fuss over actually only state two key things. First, it states that no software licensed under GPLv3 "shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure" -- which effectively means that the DMCA cannot apply to GPLv3 licensed programs (this is good for both users and companies). Second, one of the requirements is that you must distribute tools and instructions (this includes things like keys if appropriate) for changing the software on a system. This second requirement may seem onerous, but it actually doesn't require you to ship the hardware signing keys if you have a way to disable the hardware signing (or a way to replace the signing keys without needing the original keys). This is also good for companies that buy hardware that has GPLv3 software (but it does place some additional burden on companies that ship said software).
While (4) might cause some angst, there are other very useful features of the GPLv3 that you seem to be ignoring. Not to mention you didn't actually specify what the issue you're talking about is. I presume it's got to do with the "tivoisation" clause, but that clause is not the most important part of GPLv3.
Not to mention that, depending who you ask, there is a "tivoisation" clause in GPLv2. In particular, GPLv2 states that "for an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" (emphasis mine). Personally "the scripts used to control [...] installation" could include instructions on how to install an executable on a piece of hardware you've sold me (if that hardware has DRM, you have to tell me how to install the executable despite the DRM). This is still not entirely agreed upon in in the GPL conformance community (the SFC has not explicitly stated which way they go on this one either).