Wow, I think it's pretty outrageous to call a license that is not backed by the FSF GPL.next. His argument that GPL is a generic term doesn't convince me at all.

The GitHub page linked is 404 now, I think he renamed the license to avoid any misunderstandings: https://github.com/richardfontana/Copyleft.next

Richard gave a talk which touched upon this at FOSDEM earlier this year:

https://archive.fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/the_decline_o...

(Sadly I cannot find the slides online)

It doesn't say what it does anywhere that I can see. The readme concerns itself with how it's allowed and compatible with the GPL, but I can't know what it's for unless I read the entire license.

one important thing is clarification and removing leftovers from negotiations between multiple parties involved in the gpl3 license text.

What is the main difference between this and the original GPL ?

I'm not a lawyer so I ask here, why I would use GPL.next instead of GPL ?

For those looking for some context, I found some slides:

"The Decline of the GPL, and What To Do About It"

Richard Fontana, Red Hat - Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit 2012

https://events.linuxfoundation.org/images/stories/pdf/lfcs20...

Discussion thread on LWN (with the author, Richard Fontana): https://lwn.net/Articles/505589/

i wonder why this happens only now. richard fontana has been pretty open in his criticism for a while...

Because it was forked and rewritten BY Richard Fontana

huh. i know. but why now?

Totally serious question: isn't the GPL GPL'ed in some way?

Ah, I see. Thank you. :)

Is anyone involved a lawyer? After reading the discussion that went into the removal of the acceptance clause I became a little worried.

yes. many persons involved are. (richard fontana is redhat's top lawyer.)