>It covered 99% of the problems, and that's good enough for me. Sure there were some things for which GPLv3 was an improvement, but I would rather they had been covered by separate licenses
You mean such "minor" improvements like taking care of international law and not being US-law centric. Or increasing license compatibility?
For me GPLv3 is a clear win and I still wonder what GPL.next actually want to fix and if the author really think that this is worth license scattering?
I would think we have far more than enough free software license ranging from really simple non-protective licenses over weak-protective licenses to strong-protective licenses. Additionally you can get all of them with or without additional software patent clause. Where is the actual need for yet another license aka GPL.next?
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds