Peter Seebach wrote: > In message <e1o9kpn-0005yp...@fencepost.gnu.org>, "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes: >>If the FSF is the copyright holder, then there is no (legal) need to >>ask the original author about permission to relicense the work. It >>might be a nice thing to do, but if the original author says no for >>some reason, the FSF can still relicense the work; they are the >>copyright holders. > > And for that matter, it seems that at that point, the original author > doesn't have the right to just keep a copy under the terms under which > they intended to release it... Thus the issue. (It turns out that > GPLv3 is pretty deeply problematic for me; it turns out that I'd rather > just let people like TiVO play stupid games than have to deal with v3.)
You needn't worry about the possibility of a v2+-to-v3 copyright change. In the history of gnulib there has been no reason to change a LGPLv2+-copyrighted module to v3. On the contrary, we regularly change v3-copyrighted modules to v2+ (usually on request), so that they may be used in a wider variety of packages (i.e., including v2+-copyrighted ones).
