> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:
>
> 4. Condition Against Further Restrictions; Inbound License Compatibility
> 7. 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
