[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/2/9 Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/2/7 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a
>>> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to
>>> believe that the "or later" language doesn't apply. Nor does being
>>> unable to prove a negative.
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you are trying to say. Some people have
>> indicated that certain jurisdictions have laws against "or later"
>> clauses. Experts in the laws of these jurisdictions should be asked to
>> determine the truth.
> At the very least, it seems to empirically not be a problem. The GPL has
> included the "or later" language since it was first published in 1989,
> and has since gone through two updates (the first in 1991), without, as
> far as I can find, a single ruling invalidating that language. And
> GPL-licensed stuff has *much* more extensive worldwide commercial reuse
> than Wikimedia content does.

Have any of the updates been as drastic as the latest? Was there
anything in the previous updates that anyone would be likely to object
to?