Their definition of "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms" seems... incredibly vague, and with a big chicken-and-egg problem for the first license.

> If the licensor advertises license terms and a pricing structure for generally available commercial licenses, the licensor proposes license terms and a price as advertised, and a customer not affiliated with the licensor has bought a commercial license for the software on substantially equivalent terms in the past year, the proposal is fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.

Which says "While there are no legal precedents to spell out specifically what the actual terms mean..."