@Shamar Or just continue his work on GNU better than he did.
I try to avoid GNU just as a statement on diversity in the free software ecosystem.
These are different issues, though.
Technically speaking, GNU is mostly crap (with some very interesting exceptions, IMHO).
And sure: diversity is a strategic value even on technological stuffs.
Yet GNU GPL is under the copyright of FSF. And without RMS, it will be turned inside out in the next release.
Unfortunately, a fork of GNU GPL is unlikely to count as a new version of it.
So whatever is GPLv3+ when GPLv4 will be published will become GPLv4 too.
If it states "Big international corporation can do whatever they like with this code", there's nothing you can do about it.
(but obviously it won't be stated so clearly... they will just put a couple of new holes)
Ehm... no.
Usually forks are backwards compatible at the instant they are forked. So people using version 3 of X will be able to use version 0 of X' if X' is a fork of X.
Even if the GPL text was on a free license (and it's not), any project adopting GPLv3+ right now could NOT migrate to the "Stubborn Public Licence" that is a fork of it.
And no code under SPL could be linked to GPLv3+ code.
That's why it's so important to consider, for people using #GPLv3+ or #AGPLv3+ or #LGPLv3+ if they still trust #FSF!
Because if not, they should move to a GPLv3-only or whatever, before GPLv4 is out.
more reason for diversity! fork the license if you have to or stick to a specific version that you agree with. the centralization around FSF for this stuff needs to be corrected.