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
The relatively recent Linux kernel enforcement statement  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
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.