On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 08:20:18AM +0200, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 04:11:16AM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote: > > I don't think that the Linux kernel should be used for license promotion, but if it is, > > then it should be used to promote GPL-v2-only. > > I agree, and in a way, I feel like that is what is happening here for > this original submission. See below for more... I have been using copyleft-next for years and cross polination for me is real. > I agree, dual licensed code that is added to the kernel is either done: > - because the original code had a non-GPL license and it was > added so that it could be compatible so that it could be added > to Linux. > - because the code being accepted into Linux can also be used in > another non-Linux codebase now or in the future. Sometimes such cross polination is purely speculative, but we don't stop and ask people for evidence of this. You forgot that another reason is because some attorneys like some permissive license more. That's it. The Clear BSD license is an example. In that case it was a new license to Linux. So let us be clear that one could argue that was a bit of license promotion. > The submission here was neither of these. You are incorrect. I have a vision for Linux kernel testing and I have put *years* of effort in this regard and thinking about architecture behind all this. So yes cross polination is *extremely* important to me and hence some of this effort. Luis
