> The license is explicitly outbound GPL-compatible. No GPL-incompatible
> restrictions will survive licensing derived works under the GPL. But
> no one should ever get to the point of having to convert to GPL to
> bypass the provision in question. A business (or its legal advisor)
> contemplating some copyleft-based open core scheme or the like will
> take one look at copyleft-next and decide to use some other copyleft
> license for such a purpose.
Suppose project A decides they are OK with the provision preventing an open core model and decide to use copyleft-next (CN) for their license. What's to stop them from rethinking later, changing the project license to GPL and developing a proprietary version with the open core model?
Yes, the lack of copyright for parts of the code would do that unless they require copyright assignment or a more permissive contributor license, but how is that any different from the situation of CN without the provision?
IOW, I don't see how the provision adds any restrictions on use of the code or project format. It just means if some project does eventually decide to go open core, their further contributions will no longer be compatible with other CN projects, only GPL ones. That seems to hurt only those who use CN "in good faith" as their license.