On Feb 21, 2013 11:15 PM, "Richard Fontana" <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org>
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:59:16AM +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
> I think there's clarity and self-containedness in having a
"waive these
> sections" approach rather than a "use this totally different
license"
> approach, if for no other reason that you don't have the issue which is
> addressed by the "if you change the license in this way, no additional
> rights are granted" language you now see in some licenses.
Yes.
Actually, the sunset clause and the waiver of the copyleft clauses create a
de facto permissive-next. That makes it important to take this license
seriously now, rather than as a possible future project.
Is the de facto permissive-next a good license? What separates it from its
peers, like "BSD-new" and MIT?