Oxford (?) comma standardization.
Replace OSI/FSF/CLN formula of nullification provision with use of (as yet undefned) 'Proprietary License'.
Add placeholder for Affero-like condition.

Currently I see this as default mandatory but the licensor can opt out.
Replace work with (undefined) 'Code' in symmetrical licensing section.
Put 'No Trademark License' in its own section.
Spacing format fix.
Correct title of section 1.
Move placeholder Affero section for consistency with section 2.
Make wording of first sentence of section 3 clearer.
Fix line lengths.
Simplify first sentence of section 3.
Fix line lengths.
Reword last sentence of termination section.
Clarify 10b.
Delete unnecessary reference to DJ actions in 10b.
Reword symmetrical licensing section for clarity.

I have deleted the final sentence on the assumption it is not really
needed.

Lack of need for "to the extent of Your copyright in the Patch" was
noted by Pam Chestek IIRC.
Improvements to warranty/liability disclaimers.

This removes the MPL 2.0-style conspicuousness of sections 12 and 13.
New section 13a allows distributors to include additional disclaimers
or to include a copy of copyleft-next with, for example, all or part
of the contents of sections 12 and 13 capitalized.

I note that in three decades or so of free software there has been no
known instance in which lack of conspicuousness in warranty
disclaimers or limitation-of-liability provisions had any adverse
consequence. I further note that a number of FLOSS licenses carefully
drafted by lawyers outside the US have corresponding provisions with
no typographical effort to improve conspicuousness. These licenses do
not cover a large amount of software, but they cover packages found in
mainstream Linux distributions distributed in the United States as
well as other countries.
Make Inbound License Compatibility separate section; add statement on export control compliance.
Make export control statement a separate section; improve wording.
Lots of mostly formal changes; substantive change to license compatibility.

An appendix list of compatible licenses is introduced and is said to
be nonexhaustive and illustrative. The issue of conflicts between
copyleft-next and explicitly-compatible weak copyleft licenses (the
appendix lists MPL 2.0 and EPL) is addressed by saying that the 2c
copyleft condition can be ignored to the extent necessary to comply
with such weak copyleft licenses. It is also made clear that the the
license compatibility permission does not contract the scope of the
Corresponding Source requirement when Object Code is Distributed.