Linus removed that line from the kernel license because he disagreed with the tivoization clause in GPLv3, so the Linux kernel will forever remain GPLv2.
Linus removed that line before GPLv3 was created because he didn't want to give the FSF the ability to arbitrarily relicense his work to a license that he didn't have a chance to vet.
If he liked the GPLv3 he may have added the line back in, but he hasn't done so for the reason you mentioned.
> If he liked the GPLv3 he may have added the line back in
No, he couldn't have, because all the contributions received for the kernel were licensed GPLv2 without the "or later" clause, and cannot be relicensed to GPLv2 with the "or later" clause. Linux is GPLv2-only forever, essentially.
(It could relicense by stopping accepting contributions licensed without the "or later" clause, and either negotiating with all existing contributors to relicense or waiting for the copyrights to expire, but that's not likely to be practical. It certainly can't be relicensed on Linux or any other one actor's whim.)
The FSF couldn't arbitrarily relicense his work or the work of any of the other contributors to the Linux kernel that they don't hold the copyright to.
The GPLv3 had a long and comprehensive consultation phase. Linux contributors were involved in that.
And there's more than just dislike preventing relicensing - it would require contacting all the current Linux copyright holders and getting their agreement (or removing their code if they decline).
On balance I'd rather Linux remained GPLv2 than relicensed to Apache 2, so this is a good example of the definition of a compromise. :-)
That's exactly what happened to Samba. It was originally licensed with "GPLv2 or later", and now it's "GPLv3 or later". The main contributors to Samba were leading the switch, but they didn't get explicit permission from every single copyright holder, nor did they have to.
They didn't need to contact the contributors because of that "or later" clause. The license explicitly lets anyone relicense to GPLv3 without asking anybody first.
Linux's license doesn't have that clause, so you're not automatically allowed to relicense. Switching to GPLv3 would require the copyright holders to explicitly do so. Since Linux doesn't require contributors to assign copyright to some central organization, "the copyright holders" means all contributors, past and present.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU - he telegraphed GPLv3 many, many years in advance - just because it wasn't published until 2007 doesn't mean there wasn't talk about it for a long time before then.
