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