I remember that the following issues were raised:
* License for the license is insufficiently permissive.
Thread starting: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=38
Everyone agreed that there was a better way to write what was intended, so this should be uncontroversial.
* Clause 3C is overbroad, apparently by accident.
Everyone seemed to agree that it should be narrowed; Eben Moglen wrote a good fix in his message:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=69
* NOTICE clause is written unclearly, and may be overbroad as written, although the intention is correct. Most notably, it doesn't allow the removal of notices which *never* applied to the work in question. It also never defines 'notices'; it should specify that these are supposed to be legal notices. (Among other threads, mine at http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=1125924.)
* Clause 5 sentence one is considered overbroad and dangerous by many including HP, the FSF, and Debian -- insofar as it may impact entirely unrelated patent lawsuits having nothing to do with the work in question, even for patents having little to do with software but theoretically "applicable to software". (Although I guess a few people supported it.) In contrast, Clause 5 sentence 2 is supported and approved by everyone. (And some people felt that it should be broadened to terminate copyright licenses as well, although that would render it GPL-incompatible.)
I might have missed some, but I don't think so. :-)
So I guess someone should be working up a second draft. But the first draft is still the one on the webpage. Is there an estimated time for a second draft to come out for commentary? (January? March? June?) Just so we know when to start thinking about it again.
