Hi, Claes-
It's been six years since my inbox has seen a mention of permissive-next, and it isn't in the SPDX list, so I hope Richard will forgive me that I had completely forgotten its existence. :)
Couple quick thoughts, mostly to confirm Keith's observations:
- there is no defensive termination in BOML, mostly to make it a true "universal donor" license but also for simplicity, and because such clauses are not helpful against trolls. For most use cases this approach therefore seems simpler and more straightforward than the combination of permissive-next Sections 3 and 6, especially in a world where we may soon see a broad variety of strong copylefts one might want to "donate" to. (Which is not to say that permissive-next is *wrong* in approaching things this way. Just different.)
- the patent grant is deliberately broad. I have not compared it in detail to permissive-next's.
- drafting was indeed private; variety of reasons for that but in large part simply because some of us are currently exhausted by the current atmosphere around licensing discussions and wanted to default to release early, release often. (Also, for what it is worth, I probably would not choose this route for a complex copyleft, which has many more difficult drafting choices that would benefit from extensive discussion.) There are also downsides to private discussions, of course; I think they've been exhaustively discussed over the years and won't rehash them here.