What is the difference between GPL-2.0 and GPL-3.0?

Short answer: GPL-3.0 code shipped commercially: Yes.

Both are strong copyleft licenses; GPL-3.0 adds an explicit patent grant, anti-tivoization rules and compatibility with Apache-2.0.

GPL-3.0 code shipped commercially: Yes

License: GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPL-3.0-only, curated)

• Every use you described is granted by GPL 3.0, and nothing you described is prohibited.

Duties: attribution, license_notice, state_changes, share_alike, source_disclosure

Duties and notes compared

• GPL-2.0-only: duties attribution, license_notice, state_changes, share_alike, source_disclosure. Sublicensing is not allowed; every recipient receives a license from the original licensor. Running the software, including as a network service, does not by itself trigger the duty to share source; distributing copies does. GPL-2.0-only code cannot be combined with GPL-3.0 or Apache-2.0 code in one distributed work.
• GPL-3.0-only: duties attribution, license_notice, state_changes, share_alike, source_disclosure. Sublicensing is not allowed; every recipient receives a license from the original licensors (sections 2 and 10). Running the software, including as a network service, does not by itself trigger the duty to share source; conveying copies does.

Combined in one work: compatible.

Context

• "Only" and "or later" matter: GPL-2.0-only code cannot be relicensed to GPL-3.0.

Sources

• GNU GPL v3.0
• Why upgrade to GPLv3

Check it yourself (free, no key)

{
  "tool": "check_license",
  "arguments": {
    "license": "GPL-3.0-only",
    "intended_use": {
      "commercial_use": true,
      "redistribution": true
    }
  }
}

Computed from Rightshold's license profiles; not legal advice. Updated 2026-10-23. JSON · Markdown