GPL v2 only,please

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Didier Verna writes:

 > I've always felt uncomfortable with the "any later version" part of
 > the copyright headers where you agree that your work may be used
 > under the terms of a license you don't know yet. That's a bit like
 > signing a blank check.

The metaphor is perfectly good English, and applicable to this case,
of course.  The general principle is that copyleft withholds certain
limited rights in exchange for perpetual guarantee of a broad range of
free software rights.  This is just more of the same, and I think it's
a reasonable trade here for XEmacs contributors.  Why?

First, you have a pretty good idea what GPL v3, v4, and v5 will look
like.  They'll look a lot like GPL v1 and v2, especially with respect
to how they affect XEmacs.  The new terms are *much* more important to
decisions to participate in or fund a new project contemplating use of
the GPL than they are to a continuing project that has always been GPL.

Second, and more important, is that we get a *huge* benefit in return:
compatibility of licensing of XEmacs as it exists today with future
contributions to Emacsen.  Pragmatically, XEmacs does *not* have the
option to change from v2-only to v3 at some future date.  The best we
can do is ask people to accept a permissions notice up front that
gives strong assurance of future license compatibility.

 > I've even asked Richard about this in person once and he couldn't
 > give me any satisfactory answer.

I'm surprised.  Do you find the above unsatisfactory?  If so, how?