The Free Software Foundation has posted a clarificatiion of "certain misleading information" about GPLv3, obviously directed a the recent statement by the Maintainers of the Kernel. It looks to me to be what the Brits would call "too clever by half."

For example, FSF says that it "has no power to force anyone to switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 on their own code." Perhaps not, but the copyright in much of the GPLv2 code has been assigned by the writers to FSF. It could certainly shift this code to v3, for future licenses.

FSF also says, "Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, and the final version won't either." But that is not the problem - the problem is that v3 allows/encourages code writers to add additional restrictions to the GPLv3 license.

The comments on patents are more complex, but seem similarly slippery.

The statement is certain to be dissected at length on the open source talk sites, so if my suspicious mind is working overtime, the fact will soon be made manifest.