The lede sure was buried here. I do think it could've been a lot more clear about the specific issues with open source licenses and also been more clear about which of those issues a Post Open license is being proposed to solve.

It was also strange to propose there would be only one Post Open license but then immediately talk about the one of the debates of which direction Open source licenses should go. The article didn't reconcile how that and other issues would be able to be solved in one license.

I recognize that there are flaws with current Open source licenses but this article is proposing to solve 100 licenses with 1 license, without any substance on how it actually would achieve this. I guess I'm not optimistic there will only be 1 future license.