> such "or" > language can be a bit confusing. My understanding is such "or" > language is > really is only necessary or helpful for when you have some sort of > incompatible > licenses, and that's not the case here.
The problem is that it takes a lawyer to decide whether the two are compatible. If you just stuck the kernel one under GPLv2 with a note that you can get a non-GPL one at URL or as dual licence it would be a hell of a lot simpler. There are reasons there is stuff under things like dual BSD/GPL. It keeps lawyers happier because they don't have to spend time on it and the rest of us happy because we don't have to talk to lawyers 8) > Since the license *already explicitly states GPLv2 applies* when > copyleft-next Subject to getting your corporate legal team to evaluate it. It's all hassle and friction. Alan