I am not a lawyer. This is provided solely for the purposes of general information and does not constitute legal advice, guidance, or counsel. No attorney-client relationship is established by the provision of this information, and no reliance should be placed on this information in lieu of seeking professional legal advice. All information is provided “as is”, without warranty of any kind, either express or implied.
Problem
Let’s say that you wrote a piece of software, and publish it under the GNU General Public License, version 3.0, or the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3.0 (for the sake of simplicity let’s just call them GPL because the networking clause is irrelevant).
You would need to choose between two variants:
GPL-3.0-only: Even when the Free Software Foundation publishes a newer version, your project will stay on GPL version 3.0. If you are the sole copyright holder, you could update to another version of the GPL (or, for that matter, any license) at your choice. If there are other copyright holders (such as contributors ), you cannot unilaterally change the license, and would have to ask for permission from each copyright holder (or remove their code).
GPL-3.0-or-later: When the Free Software Foundation publishes new versions of licenses, anyone could choose to use your program under the terms of the new license.
I find neither approach to be ideal. It is often impossible to gain consensus of all copyright holders since some may be unreachable. I also wouldn’t trust the FSF with the power to unilaterally change the license of my program.
Solution
Notice that in section 14,
If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU Affero General Public License can be used, that proxy’s public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program.
... continue reading