You can't claim that the contributors didn't have a say in the license.
They agreed to any changes the FSF might make when they agreed to the "or later" clause in the original license.
Well, sure. They accepted that the Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. And they were promised that such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
In the same way, if you choose to license your work with an "or later" clause you give up control over how the work may be licensed in the future to whichever organization publishes the license.
Sure. But this is not what transpired here. Instead of receiving new similar in spirit version of license they were transferred en-masse from one Suzerain to another. That's fundamental violation of principle The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal. This may or may not be legal, but I know that it's not something I would like.
If that isn't what you want, don't license the work under an "or later" clause in the first place.
That's what I try to do lately, yes. I was significantly more forgiving to these clauses in the past, but after GPLv3 and GFDLv1.3 abuses of power by FSF it becomes more and more clear to me that the ability “to bugfix the license” is not good enough reason to give this much power to third party. Instead it's more honest to use BSD (or maybe Apache) license and give equal powers to everyone. Situation is not all that dissimilar to problem of Canonical's copyright assignment.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds