Richardfontana/GPL.next - Fork of GPL

Wow, I think it's pretty outrageous to call a license that is not backed by the FSF GPL.next. His argument that GPL is a generic term doesn't convince me at all.

Richard gave a talk which touched upon this at FOSDEM earlier this year:

https://archive.fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/the_decline_o...

(Sadly I cannot find the slides online)

It doesn't say what it does anywhere that I can see. The readme concerns itself with how it's allowed and compatible with the GPL, but I can't know what it's for unless I read the entire license.

What is the main difference between this and the original GPL ?

I'm not a lawyer so I ask here, why I would use GPL.next instead of GPL ?

For those looking for some context, I found some slides:

"The Decline of the GPL, and What To Do About It"

Richard Fontana, Red Hat - Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit 2012

https://events.linuxfoundation.org/images/stories/pdf/lfcs20...

Discussion thread on LWN (with the author, Richard Fontana): https://lwn.net/Articles/505589/

i wonder why this happens only now. richard fontana has been pretty open in his criticism for a while...

Totally serious question: isn't the GPL GPL'ed in some way?

Is anyone involved a lawyer? After reading the discussion that went into the removal of the acceptance clause I became a little worried.