On 17 January 2012 09:25, David Turner <di...@google.com> wrote: > An easier approach would be to ask for all future contributions to be > covered by "FreeType License 1.1", > ... >> Apache2 is not compatible with GPLv2 notably because of this >> particular patent clause (that's the general agreement anyway -- some >> see GPLv2 as already having an equivalent clause, albeit less >> explicit). Apache2 is compatible with GPLv3, however. > > GPL is already not an issue since the original FreeType license is not > compatible either (due to the credit clause). That's why we dual-license the > library by the way. I don't see why anything would change with the proposed > license update.
But its GPLv2 only :-( Apache 2 is GPLv3 compatible. So I'd suggest either using Apache 2, or using FreeType License 1.1 and GPLv2-or-later. -- Cheers Dave _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list Freetype-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
