On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:05 PM Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) copyleft-next@clacke.user.lysator.liu.se wrote:
The Blue Oak Model License 1.0 (the BOML1) is a very short, very non-legalese permissive license with a patent clause, and the authors claim that it covers all relevant bases. The spirit of the endeavour is very similar to the spirit behind copyleft-next:
I'm not sure that is so.
We have mentioned before on the list how the sunset clause in copyleft-next really gives rise to a permissive-next license, which is copyleft-next with some conditions removed or disabled.
If the legal theory and the prose of the BOML1 are good, does it make sense for permissive-next to deviate from BOML1 at all? Or should copyleft-next actually be BOML1 + copyleft provisions + sunset clause?
This is all academic because BOML (leaving aside its dubious copyrightability of course) has been clarified to be under a non-free license, so copyleft-next / permissive-next (which is covered by CC0) can't use it.
Richard