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.
I'd ask why, but I suspect the correct answer is "because we haven't really communicated our goals terribly clearly".
> 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.
I think we're going to fix that to an "do what you will as long as you remove naming" statement, FWIW. Still not sure any of the specific language is worth salvaging to -next's drafting style, though.
Luis