On 29/03/17 22:25, Brian May wrote: > Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> writes: > >> But in the worst case, it will be compatible with GPLv2+ and GPLv3. > > I am not sure I see this as the worst case situation. Or maybe you meant > to write "incompatable"? > No. Apache 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3 [1] (therefore also with GPLv2+). That is a fact, and its the worst case situation (assuming that the re-license to Apache 2.0 actually happens) I know that the FSF holds the view that Apache 2.0 is not compatible with GPLv2 [1]. But, at the same time I have read that "many prominent open source lawyers consider the GPLv2 and Apache 2 licenses to be compatible already" [2]. So, the best case situation (IMHO) would be that a lawyer tell us that Apache 2.0 is also compatible with GPLv2-only, and that we stop playing the game of being amateur lawyers instead of software developers. Regards. -------- [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 [2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature