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. 


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 1:05 PM Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) <copyleft-next@clacke.user.lysator.liu.se> wrote:
A group of lawyers have banded together to try to classify and rank
all free software licenses, and during that work they came up with a
list of checkboxes. None of the licenses reviewed checked all boxes,
so they went and made a "model license" that would live up to all
their expectations.

A brief story of that work is at
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html .
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:

> Blue Oak starts with a summary of its purpose, a built-in TL;DR. You should read the whole license, because it’s easy and it matters. Blue Oak wants to be understood.

Ok, so that's the background on what the BOML1 is. Now:

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?
And vice versa, if permissive-next is better in some way than BOML1,
shouldn't they want to know about it and incorporate the improvements
in BOML2?

The board of Blue Oak are Heather Meeker, Kyle Mitchell and Luis
Villa. I think Villa is a member of this mailing list? He has forked
copyleft-next on github, so he knows about the project for sure. :-)

--
   /c
_______________________________________________
copyleft-next mailing list -- copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to copyleft-next-leave@lists.fedorahosted.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org