-----Original Message----- From: Luis Chamberlain mcgrof@infradead.org On Behalf Of Luis Chamberlain
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 11:27:34PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29 2021 at 11:44, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
- "FSF-Free" means classified as 'free' by the Free Software Foundation.
- "OSI-Approved" means approved as 'Open Source' by the Open Source
- Initiative.
copyleft-next is neither nor. Confused...
The terms are used in two clauses:
- Condition Against Further Restrictions; Inbound License Compatibility
- Nullification of Copyleft/Proprietary Dual Licensing
IANAL but at least as per my reading, in both cases it is used to refer to "other licenses", not itself, so I see no issue with that use. If there is an issue it would be nice to hear more details about it, so that perhaps new versions of the license can make this clearer somehow, if not already.
I don't begrudge Luis his licensing choice, but one of the main reasons to stick with a well-known and reviewed license is to avoid kernel developers having to do license-vetting themselves. I know it's being submitted as an OR, but I question the value of introducing another license into the kernel's licensing mix. -- Tim