Richard's recent post said the following about FSF, and commercial use of the license:

>> Could you elaborate a bit on this? My sense is that the primary objection
>> for commercial users of the license has to do with the nature of the
>> copyleft rather than the specific language that implements the copyleft, so
>> for *commercial* adoption I think the drafting question is definitely only
>> marginal in effect. [Not to say a rewrite wouldn't help commercial
>> adoption, but that it is far from the primary issue.]

> I agree it is not the primary issue. I would also say that the
> commercial objection to copyleft specifically has to do with
> (sometimes severely-mistaken) perceptions of FSF-influenced
> interpretation of the GPL (which copyleft-next implicitly accepts as
> essentially correct from a policy standpoint).

Putting aside whether or not the critique is correct, this begs the question: if copyleft-next accepts FSF policy as essentially correct[1] how will copyleft-next avoid creating similar perceptions? Simply by not being formally FSF-affiliated, or...?

To be clear, I'm not arguing here for repudiation of FSF's policy, which I agree is by-and-large correct, just that if (1) FSF's policy creates a perception problem and (2) copyleft-next follows that policy then (3) how does copyleft-next plan to usefully differentiate itself from any perception problems caused by FSF's policies? Merely better branding, or some other substantive change (i.e., in governance, or policy for post-release interpretation, or...?)

Luis