> Bernd> I don't think that's true. Given that all copyrights are assigned to > Bernd> the FSF, the FSF could license these changes as GPLv2+ (in 4.2) and > Bernd> GPLv3+ (in 4.3 and up) without a problem. The original author's > Bernd> wishes do not come into play. > > Wrong. The original author can license his or her own code to > others using different licenses.
Yes, but the claim was somewhat the opposite: since any assignments on file were done when GPLv2 was current, one could argue that the author has ALREADY consented to release their code under both GPLv2 and GPLv3 without any further approval. I agree with that as well, but also see the point that once the patch has been placed into a GPLv3 file, it's quite unclear what license would result from a "backport" of the patch: in some sense, you'd have to start from the original (GPLv2) patch and apply it to the branch rather than a more conventional "backport". What a mess!
