[vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Micah Cowan (micah at cowan.name):

> As an /author/, I elect GPLv2 (no "or later").

As an author, you have no downside from "or later" if FSF issues a
proprietary-leaning GPLv3, because (1) your recipients can always reject
it and elect GPLv2, and (2) you would probably follow up latest release
n with an n.001 that newly omitted the "or later".

I.e., obviously the threat of then forking release n-or-less under FSF's
new restrictive terms isn't of concern.

What you might theoretically need to fear is FSF's v.3 terms being
radically _more_ permissive.  Then, suddenly someone can create a
non-copyleft fork of n at any time, even as you develop n.001 and after
under GPLv2 (as to your portion of the codebase, at least).  

Most people consider the likelihood of GPLv3 being non-copyleft to be
minuscule.

> However, there is an interesting situation: when I'm both recipient and 
> author (as in the case of modifying-and-distributing).

Then, you enjoy rights over the codebase without needing to accept the
licence on any instance of it in the first place.

> Reads a lot into 17 USC 201,

Actually, into caselaw.

Catherine Olanich Raymond is a copyright attorney.