Information Week has an article asserting that reaction is "muted" to the GPLV3 which was launched last Friday. Still early to draw conclusions. In several postings relating to earlier drafts I noted that attorneys should be consulted before adopting GPLV3. I believe this continues to be excellent advice.
The InfoWeek article says in part:
Rod Spring, lead developers of the Spring Framework for Java developers, said Spring will remain under the Apache Software License.
"I am concerned at the more ideological parts of the GPL3, including the restrictions that may impact digital rights management. However, it's good to see that this appears to be have been softened in recent drafts."
The GPLv3 bans digital rights management in GPL licensed code as well as requiring a particular version of GPL code on a hardware device, such as a TiVo set-top box. Stallman refers to such a requirement as "the tivoization" of software. He believes the device user should be able to modify the software on the device, if he chooses.
However, in a comment, "jgoguen" says:
You're wrong to say "The GPLv3 bans digital rights management in GPL licensed code...", since a 30 second search shows this from the FSF web site: "GPL version 3 does not restrict the features of a program; in particular, it does not prohibit DRM. However, it prohibits the use of tivoization and Treacherous Computing to stop users from changing the software. Thus, they are free to remove whatever features they may dislike." Since the FSF put out GPL3, I would think they're a fairly credible source to take 30 seconds and do some research with.