@lucy It allows bugs in the license to actually be fixed once found.

The legal system is not static - changes to laws are made and court rulings occur - therefore it's very important that it's possible to fix freedom bugs if a court decides to go full retard.

If only one or two developers are the copyright holders, it's not much a problem if the software is licensed -only, as upgrading the license is trivial.

But if there are dozens, hundreds or thousands of developers, upgrading the license is nigh impossible and the project soon ends up in a dead end, as the software cannot be re-used in other projects or re-use other projects.


Some people complain about the possibility of not being able to pre-review future versions of the license (despite how the drafting process is public), but there's an option to declare a proxy instead in the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 that can review future versions and determine if they're acceptable, but so far none of those naysayers I've discussed this with have taken that option - it seems they have some other agenda.