Greg KH wrote: > Let's keep it simple please, and not add new licenses for no real good > reason if at all possible. I've stated a number of real good reasons to keep copyleft-next as a dual-licensing option; they seem to have not been refuted here. Indeed, this point is quite salient: Joe Perches wrote: >>> You can ask but it's the submitter's choice to license their code however >>> they desire. … to which I'd add, as long as the license is GPLv2-only-compatible, which of course (GPLv2-only|copyleft-next) is. Rest is admittedly a bit OT: Greg also noted: > I have stated in public many times to companies that try to add > dual-licensed new kernel code that they should only do so if they provide a > really good reason We can agree to disagree on the differences in how company vs. individual requests and their "good reasons" are handled/prioritized; I think we'd both agree it's actually moot anyway. While it's an important topic, I apologize for raising that as it was off-topic to the issue at hand. On that off-topic point, Tim Bird added: >> It's not at all purely symbolic to dual license (GPLv2-only|2-Clause-BSD). >> That dual-licensing has allowed the interchange of a lot of code between >> the BSD Unixes and Linux, that otherwise would not have happened. This is a good point, but the same argument is of course valid for copyleft-next-licensed projects. While there are currently fewer than those than BSD-ish projects, I don't think Linux should stand on ceremony of “your project must be this tall to ride this ride” and share code with us … and then there are the aspirational arguments that I made in my prior email. -- Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
