Re: Future licence suggestions (was : License problem in Ubuntu Desktop Guide)

[Yavor Doganov <yavor doganov org>]

karderio wrote:
> 
> Just to make this clear, you are saying that if you assign copyright to
> the FSF, you can change your licence from GPLv2 to GPLv3 (for example)
> without needing any permission from the FSF. 

Yes, the FSF gives blanket permission for this since any subsequent
versions of their licenses should be designed to do its job better,
e.g. to protect our freedom better.

> If the copyright is held by several sparse individuals, you still
> need the permission of everyone to upgrade your licence.

Yes, certainly.  

> I think many projects are in this situation, this seems rather dangerous
> and could render much software unusable in the case of new copyright
> laws for example. I'm wondering if GPLv3 could address this issue at
> all...

No license can address this.  That's why the automatic upgrade
procedure is implemented, e.g. "GPLv2 or later" or "FDL 1.2 or later"
and people are encouraged to use this mechanism.  Some argue that it
is inappropriate to license your stuff under unexisting license.  It's
a matter of trust.  I trust the FSF more than myself [*] and I'm
absolutely sure that any subsequent versions of their licenses will be
better and suitable for my work, and for the community in general.

[*] I may go nuts one day and start talking about "Open Source", and
relicense my stuff under BSD/CDDL, or if I encounter serious mental
problems I might even start translating proprietary programs or write
documentation for Apple Mail. But the FSF will not do it, or it will
be the end of the world and the end of what we're fighting for.