Comparing copyleft-next and gplv3 termination terms

[Luis Chamberlain]

I am happy that certain company attorneys (SUSE and Red Hat) have
agreed on the GPL compatibility between GPLv2 and copyleft-next 0.3.1.
Its why I ended up using it for a few Linux kernel code, all now
upstream, even though we ended up adopting a dual license language, to
air on the side of caution with regards to views of GPL compatibility
claims.

The relatively recent Linux kernel enforcement statement [0] borrowed
some terms from GPLv3 to avoid such harsh death penalty terms, and it
got me wondering how does it compare to copyleft-next's terms for
reinstating rights.

As I read it copyleft-next 0.3.1 reinstates rights automatically if
the violator cures their violation within 30 days of becoming aware of
the violation. That is is, it doesn't mention any other way a violator
is reinstated rights. Meanwhile the Linux kernel enforcement statement
allows both the a) provision term and b) permanent term, and also a
third permanent option if permanent reinstating rights if the
violation is cured 30 days after. I take it was this later aspect
which inspired copyleft-next 0.3.1's terms. Is that right? If so then
as I see it indeed the reinstating terms of copyleft-next 0.3.1 are as
friendly as in the Linux kernel enforcement statement, just further
simplified. Is that right?

If my reading is right then, if people really want to adopt a flexible
license which reflects the practice embraced by the Linux kernel
enforcement statement, such folks should probably just consider using
copyleft-next 0.3.1 from a practical / simplification point of view.
Thoughts?

[0] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/kernel-enforcement-statement.h...

Luis