[powersnail]

> The FSF is in the unique position in that the FSF could change the GPL if they wanted to.

They can publish new versions of GPL if they want to. They can't retroactively change the terms that users of the software and contributors agreed to.

Just like any code owners who has the complete control of copyright can publish their code under a different license.

[richardwhiuk]

GPL includes a line which allows it to be used under any future version of the GPL.

So if you license under GPLv2, the FSF can create GPLv5 and add whatever clause they like in it.

[tgma]

Importantly, GPL does not include such line. That line is not part of the GPL. Critical software such as Linux famously do not have that and are not GPLv3 for example.

The Author can choose to license the Copyrighted Work under various licenses. The common boilerplate that many Authors of GPL software choose to use is a boilerplate that says they are licensing their Work under GPL version X or any later versions supplied by FSF. That boilerplate is Author's declaration of license contract and not the license itself.

Basically the Author is directly saying (not through the GPL text) that "I trust FSF to come up with future licenses and call whatever they want GPL version Y [Y>X] and I'll be willing to license my work under that license sight-unseen also."

[powersnail]

If I accept their license on 2024-08-14 to use their software, they can do whatever they want to the license after that, but they won't be able to revoke my license to use the code as of 2024-08-14 under the license present to me on 2024-08-14.

No update on the license can retroactively change what I agreed to.

[teddyh]

> the FSF can create GPLv5 and add whatever clause they like in it.

They cannot add anything to it; the new license has to, IIRC, be substantially similar in spirit.

[zzo38computer]

That is only if the license of that software says they can use later versions of GPL; it is not automatic.