Luis Villa wrote at 16:02 (CEST) on Thursday:
[app stores] are a form of distribution where the distributor is really minimally interested and wants to have the minimum possible involvement. And I think that's actually OK, and is distinguishable from other forms of distribution. So we do want to think about how to make that possible.
While I think that I see your point, I see this situation rather simply: they're either common carriers, or they aren't. We don't sue ISPs for copyleft infringement because they have safe harbor: at worst, they get a DMCA take-down, but they aren't and shouldn't be liable.
App-stores want editorial control, at the very least. Thus, they aren't common carriers. They don't deserve special distribution treatment. If software authors want to allow "minimally interested distribution" that isn't common carrier activity, then highly permissive license is probably what they were looking for in the first place.
We also have to take here some of Fontana's points about the idea that copyleft-next should take care not to be overly influenced by "issues of the day". Fontana has pointed to places where both GPLv2 and GPLv3 fell victim to that. I agree with him on this point, although we probably disagree which parts of GPLv2/v3 had this problem. :)
My gut says that the "app stores are really really really a special type of distribution, that's SO different from all the distribution we've ever had in the past" might be just such a case where we've let an issue of the day influence license drafting. Fontana, I'm curious if you agree.
I recently discovered that Microsoft has changed their app store license policies for Windows Mobile 8. So I believe that at least their on-paper legal policies ... would now be compliant
I'd be interested to see your findings on this. Will your blog post disclose whether or not Microsoft is your client and/or funded your work, BTW? I hope so; I don't want to have to compare you to Edward J. Naughton. :)
copyleft.next
BTW, while I keep propagating "copyleft.next" naming myself, Fontana has finally beaten it into my head it's called copyleft-next, and copyleft.next is a misspelling. :)