On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:43:08AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > This adds the copyleft-next-0.3.1 SPDX tag and replaces existing > boilerplate with the tag. > > Luis Chamberlain (2): > LICENSES: Add the copyleft-next-0.3.1 license > testing: use the copyleft-next-0.3.1 SPDX tag > > LICENSES/dual/copyleft-next-0.3.1 | 237 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > lib/test_kmod.c | 12 +- > lib/test_sysctl.c | 12 +- > tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh | 13 +- > tools/testing/selftests/sysctl/sysctl.sh | 12 +- As we only have 4 usages of this license in the tree, we have the opportunity to actually remove it and keep the list of licenses that we use in the kernel source smaller. Any chance you wish to just change the license of these files, given that you are the only one that has tried to use it for kernel code? As a follow-up to this, I do not want to see your "test_sysfs.c" module as a dual-licensed file, as that makes no sense whatsoever. It is directly testing GPL-v2-only code, so the attempt to dual license it makes no sense to me. How could anyone take that code and do anything with it under the copyleft-next license only? And where would that happen? I understand the appeal of copyleft-next in that it resolves many of the "grey" areas around gplv2, but given that no one is rushing to advise us to relicense all of the kernel with this thing, there is no need to encourage the spread of it given the added complexity and confusion that adding another license to our mix can only cause. So please, no, I don't want to see new licenses added to the tree, if anything we should be trimming them down to be less as it makes things simpler and more obvious. thanks, greg k-h
