@Suiseiseki

> As per US copyright law, what makes license grants possible is a law called copyright law

Copyright law is a specific case of IP law. Copyright is a special case of intellectual property. There is no room to dispute this. WIPO (spit) is concerned with copyright, because copyright is within the purview of the World Intellectual Property Organization (spit).

> copyright is clearly stated to be something different to property.

The term "intellectual property" did not exist when the British pushed the US to adopt copyright law, which we did not have for a long time: anyone could copy books here.

If I reject intellectual property as a concept, I have also rejected copyright; there is not a way to reject intellectual property without rejecting copyright. This is one of the reasons the copyleft is clever: if you accept the concept of copyright, then the license explicitly grants the right to copy, while if you do not, the license does not matter.

> You ought to explicitly license AGPLv3-or-later,

It is funny that you mention this, because I see this notification right after another from a different thread I am participating in: they are trying to kick rms and Sussman off the board of the FSF. Do you trust that the FSF is impossible to corrupt, and also that they will never make a mistake?

I do not trust hypothetical future licenses; if there is an "or later" version of the AGPLv3 that is compatible with the AGPLv3, then that is fine. But imagine Drew DeVault seizes control of the FSF and AGPLv4 fails to respect the four freedoms: I will regret saying "And anything this organization decides to call a later version of the AGPL is fine." The AGPLv3 is a concrete thing: I can look at it and make a decision. I cannot look at later versions, because they do not exist, and thus cannot decide anything about them.