<p dir="ltr">On Feb 21, 2013 11:15 PM, "Richard Fontana" <<a href="mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org">fontana@sharpeleven.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:59:16AM +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:</p>
<p dir="ltr">> > I think there's clarity and self-containedness in having a "waive these<br>
> > sections" approach rather than a "use this totally different license"<br>
> > approach, if for no other reason that you don't have the issue which is<br>
> > addressed by the "if you change the license in this way, no additional<br>
> > rights are granted" language you now see in some licenses.<br>
><br>
> Yes.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Is the de facto permissive-next a good license? What separates it from its peers, like "BSD-new" and MIT?</p>