On Jul 03 13:24:43, Brad wrote: > On 03/07/11 3:46 AM, Jan Stary wrote: > >On Jul 01 19:08:47, Brad wrote: > >>On 01/07/11 6:18 PM, Jan Stary wrote: > >>>>audio/sox > >>> > >>>I will take care of audio/sox. In fact, I have an update for > >>>audio/sox ready, as my main motivation for porting AMR was > >>>to have AMR functionality in SoX. > >> > >>Make sure to update the license marker in the Makefile to > >>GPLv3+. > > > >Why? Sox 14.3.2 comes with GPLv2, the sox libraries come with LGPLv2.1. > >Now it contains new functionality of the opencore-amr that comes with > >Apache License 2.0; why does it make GPLv3 the right thing for > >the SoX port? > > Because you cannot add opencore-amr to the SoX port if its under > GPLv2. The licenses are incompatible.
Yes; but how does GPLv3 make it compatible? opencore-amr itself is under Apache License 2.0. Why does it mean that a package of SoX that uses opencore-amr should be under GPLv3? Does GPLv3 somehow incorporate the Apache License? I don't mean I am against it; I just want to understand.
