On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 18:30, David Hicks <[email protected]> wrote:
> Further to that, if we were to start mixing up GPL3 and APL2 code, we'd > still have problems. They are compatible in as much as anything under APL2 > can be brought under GPL3 because it is a BSD style license. BUT > even if that's ok to distribute, we would have to consider that anything > that links to this GPL library must now be covered by the GPL3 and not APL2, > because that's the way the GPL works. > > I happen to like the GPL, but you won't then be able to send any changes > back upstream to anyone that doesn't want to GPL their codebase. And it > looks like google took pains to make sure they didn't have to. > If it was GPLv3: Indeed it may mean the whole code you distribute is to be considered GPLv3. But even then it might not be "so" problematic. You can still keep all the rest of the code also Apache2 (when without the GPL lib). (the code, except the GPL lib, is then some kind of dual licensed. just that the whole project including the GPLv3 lib can only be distributed as GPLv3) The real limitation beeing that such library could never be sent upstream to google. But the rest of the code (other changes to android) can still be, as it can still be Apache2 licenced. _______________________________________________ android-freerunner mailing list [email protected] http://android.koolu.org/listinfo.cgi/android-freerunner-koolu.org
