Copyleft-next should not do unilateral disarmament via the sunset clause

[Vasileios Valatsos]

Personally I agree, and feel like any "sunsetting" of a copyleft clause 
is a defeat for any libre software license.

 > I don't think an intended-as-flagship copyleft license should be 
adding to the steady decline of copyleft towards permissive licensing

I fully agree. The purpose of copyleft was to ensure the freedoms of the 
end user, not of the developer; there is zero reason for any person who 
cares about end user freedoms to pick copyleft-next over the GPL, as old 
a the GPL may be and in need of a refresh.

If anything I would go the extra mile and say that copyleft-next should 
reinforce the idea of copyleft in new spaces such as AI training 
(although that's for a different thread).

 > However, introducing regressions relative to the GPL runs counter to 
that goal.

Apart from regressions, with which I fully agree, I feel like the issue 
on top is that 'sunsetting', in terms of patents and copyrights at 
least, is meant to limit the ability of people (or corporations) to hold 
on to, and to prevent users from accessing, their own proprietary work.

In this sense sunsetting copyleft is nonsensical, because copyleft 
enforces user access.

- Vasileios Valatsos