It is the copyleft-next project itself that has been restarted:
> We excitedly announce that the two of us (Richard and Bradley) have been in
discussions [1] for a few months to restart, revitalize, and relaunch
copyleft-next!
> Today, GPLv3 turns exactly 18 years old. This month, GPLv2 turned 34 years
old. These are both great licenses and we love them. Nevertheless, at
least once in a generation, FOSS needs a new approach to strong copyleft.
> "We learned much from what was done right and (frankly) what was done wrong in drafting GPLv3"
Read the full announcement at:
https://fedi.copyleft.org/@next/114769761806288554
> We excitedly announce that the two of us (Richard and Bradley) have been in discussions [1] for a few months to restart, revitalize, and relaunch copyleft-next!
> Today, GPLv3 turns exactly 18 years old. This month, GPLv2 turned 34 years old. These are both great licenses and we love them. Nevertheless, at least once in a generation, FOSS needs a new approach to strong copyleft.
https://lists.copyleft.org/pipermail/next/2025q2/000000.html
I don’t think unilaterally changing license is legal.
If i include the linux kernel in my derivative work, can i change the kernel license?
No wonder this went nowhere.
But i just realised this is a non issue: anything including gpl-licensed software is automatically gpl software itsef as the gpl is a viral license.
So the original excerpt is useless.