@p >Copyright law is a specific case of IP law.
Copyright was a thing long before someone imagined up such proprietary brain damage term.

Even people in the "WIPO" has realized that many people don't buy their name and has recommended that the name has been changed.

>because copyright is within the purview of the World Imaginary Property Organization
Copyright is in the purview of each countries governments, although most governments follow their beck and call.

>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.
At the time I believe anyone could copy books in Britain by hand and it was a matter that restricted printing presses only.

Even when the USA adopted copyright, initially it did not apply to works from other countries.

>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.
If you reject imaginary property as the false concept that it is, that does not mean you could have possibly rejected an actual law that actually exists.

>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.
There is no choice whether to accept the concept of copyright or not, the law exists and restricts copying and the government enforces it - if you make a copy, you need to follow the license whether or not you accept it.

>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?
The FSF has very carefully set up a voting scheme that ensures that it is impossible to corrupt and still have the Free Software Foundation and that any mistakes can be resolved, so yes I do trust them.

As per the AGPLv3; "The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU Affero General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.", only the Free Software Foundation may publish revised versions and such versions need to be similar in spirit to be valid.

Most other software licenses that offer an ability to fix license bugs simply give permission for an easily corrupted committee to release new versions that could contain anything.

>But imagine Drew DeVault seizes control of the FSF and AGPLv4 fails to respect the four freedoms
He cannot - nobody will vote that freedom hater in.

>I cannot look at later versions, because they do not exist, and thus cannot decide anything about them.
I can feel that if later versions need to exist, they will certainly be free, as unlike how other organizations bugfix licenses, the FSF license bugfix process is public.


If you have misplaced doubt, please assign a proxy; "If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU Affero General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program.".