But in case you donít trust judges to see it the same way, GPLv3 includes a second term: You can name a proxy who can take the decision whether a new version of the GPL may be used for your project. But for that you have to use the GPLv3. GPLv2 does not include an option for it.
Let me give you the full quote:
Originally Posted by http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl
You offered the GPLv2, so they are free to use the GPLv2. A license cannot retroactively take away rights it already granted (and should not, because people might depend on them for good reasons). And if it only gave lime-limited rights, it would not really qualify as free software licenseÖI would love if somebody could explain what would stop the evil company from doing that.
//EDIT: On the other side if some hole in the GPLv2 gets found and you want the new GPLv4 to apply cause it fixes that hole, who would win in court? You that chooses the option of GPLv4 or some evil company that chooses the option of GPLv2 (cause they simply don't want a later version) to exploit that hole?
But you can use GPLv4 for all future work on the project, so they can only abuse an old version of your code. Thatís one of the reasons, why freeBSD is still stuck with GCC 4.2 (as reported here on Phoronix: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag..._llvmgcc&num=4 ). freeBSD is stuck in GCC code from 2007 and is scrambling for LLVM, because they donít like the protections GPLv3 offers to users. The same goes for Apple. They have to spend lots of money (=development time) to get the abusable LLVM into a state where it can actually compete with GCC, so by licensing GCC under GPLv3, the GNU folks could actually ensure that abusing users carries a hefty price.