Re: [PATCH 1 of 3] switch license to GPLv3 so we can include files under Apache 2.0. For details, see: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:09:36PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> At Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:11:01 +0200, <olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net> wrote:

> > every source file should state the license in the header...
> 
> It should suffice to state the project license. The source files are
> GPLv2 or later, so they can be used under GPLv3. 
> 
> The project as a whole can only be under GPLv3, though. 

Well, it is true that the combination of GPLv2+ code and Apache 2.0 code
can only be legally distributed under the terms of the GPLv3; but that
doesn't affect the actual license conditions of any individual part.
Calling the distribution terms for the combined work a "project license"
is misleading at best... Users do not get a single license for the whole
work. They get a GPLv2+ license for the parts that actually constitute
the project, and an Apache 2.0 license for certain external components
employed.

I'm not familiar with the Python packaging system though, and how such
situations are usually handled there... Perhaps there is indeed no
better way.

-antrik-