> > I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3. > > The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to > take that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could.
The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL. FSF wants "GPLv3 or later" and it's not at all clear to me that we could change the license of code that's not copyright assigned to FSF to that license (we can for code that HAS been assigned).
