I think the general consensus is that if you authored 100% of the code yourself, you could always change the license (but people could fork the latest version u

I think the general consensus is that if you authored 100% of the code yourself, you could always change the license (but people could fork the latest version under the old license and keep going, as happened with X.org), but it you ever took any patches/pull requests/contributions without also receiving a copyright assignment, you need to hunt down every single contributor to agree to a license change. I think that happened with Mozilla and VLC, whilst for Linux it would appear that several core contributors have explicitly refused to re-license (for example to change from GPL2only to GPL2+). Other examples include MySQL, which was dual-licensed GPL and commercial, and KDE/Qt which also had a dual-licensing (and then a re-licensing). If all contributors also accept to transfer copyright/ownership up-front, re-licensing is easier. I'm guessing re-licensing after death would require waiting whatever period (70+ years?) for copyright to expire.