Last call draft means exactly that. It's still a draft, so if you see issues, let them know. But this is the last draft, so speak now or forever hold your peace on changes to GPLv3.

Richard Stallman has also released an essay on the draft, providing some reasons he sees to upgrade, but also including this word about compatibility:

First of all, it is important to note that upgrading is a choice. GPL version 2 will remain a valid license, and no disaster will happen if some programs remain under GPLv2 while others advance to GPLv3. These two licenses are incompatible, but that isn't a serious problem.

When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program....

Fortunately, license incompatibility only matters when you want to link, merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program. There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs side by side in an operating system. For instance, the TeX license and the Apache license are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn't stop us from running TeX and Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC. This is because they are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and GCC move to GPLv3, while Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no conflict.

So, no disaster if you wish to stick to v2; but there are some legal benefits to upgrading.

• 352 - Novell's Motion to Strike Supplemental Declaration of Mark F. James Attaching Expert Reports and Declarations
• 353 - Memorandum in Support

I don't think Novell was pleased that SCO filed something 60 pages long the day before a hearing. Novell not only hasn't had a chance to read it properly, it has no chance to respond. It says it had no warning. It is asking the court to strike James' supplemental declaration and all that goes with it. I take this as SCO telegraphing that it was worried it would lose at today's hearing and so threw more evidence in, even late, even oddly, because they don't know what else to do. Novell implies something more deliberative.

This is the SCO motion Novell is here opposing. SCO's Reply to this Novell opposition memorandum can be found here, along with supporting exhibits.

This is mainly about slander of title and hence copyright ownership. On that, the parties are pointing fingers at each other. And both of them are saying that the APA is clear as a bell as to which of them owns the copyrights, namely not the other guy. SCO has asked only for partial summary judgment on its claims in this motion, slander of title (1st claim), breach of contract (APA and TLA, the 2nd claim) and the unfair competition (5th), again all on the basis of its alleged copyright ownership. Novell, is asking for summary judgment on its slander of title counterclaim and specific performance claims, on the basis that the plain language of the agreements shows that it is the owner of the copyrights.

Novell reveals in this memo many new details about the history of the Asset Purchase Agreement's drafting and execution and about Santa Cruz's and Caldera/SCO Group's conduct thereafter we haven't heard before. I think it would be fair to characterize it by saying that Novell is effectively saying that SCO has been willfully pretending to own the copyrights when it knew better all along.

In late 2002 and early 2003, Novell tells the court, SCO repeatedly contacted Novell asking it to amend the APA to transfer the copyrights:

SCO's actions speak louder than its words: SCO was well aware that no transfer of copyrights had occurred.

One of the people who Novell says tried to get them was Darl McBride. Another was Ralph Yarro.