[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yo5xTwGLmbsgJhfM@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 11:11:27 -0700
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Fontana <fontana@...rpeleven.org>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"jeyu@...nel.org" <jeyu@...nel.org>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>,
"dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"minchan@...nel.org" <minchan@...nel.org>,
"linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.com>,
Kuno Woudt <kuno@...b.nl>,
"copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org"
<copyleft-next@...ts.fedorahosted.org>,
Ciaran Farrell <Ciaran.Farrell@...e.com>,
Christopher De Nicolo <Christopher.DeNicolo@...e.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/6] LICENSES: Add the copyleft-next-0.3.1 license
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 05:05:54PM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote:
> I know it's being submitted as an OR, but I question
> the value of introducing another license into the kernel's licensing mix.
As a free software hacker *I* value the evolution of copyleft and copyleft-next
does just that. Some may have thought that it may not have been possible to
evolve copyleft and work with an evolved license on Linux, but copyleft-next
shows it is possible. Here in lies the value I see in it.
I agree that we want to keep the number of licenses as small as
possible but we cannot really dictate which dual licensing options a
submitter selects unless the license is GPL-2.0-only incompatible,
which copyleft-next is not.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists