3 ms·

This should allow "GPLv2 or later" code to be used, right? (Allowing it to be ported to more ARM platforms)

• bunderbunder 8y ago
  I don't believe so. Here's the Apache project's position on the subject: "Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects. . . However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects. The licenses are incompatible in one direction only" (https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html) (edit: Forgot to mention GPLv2 - that one is even less compatible: "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2")
  • yuhong 8y ago
    Yea, I know it might require the RISC OS kernel to be relicensed.
    • csdreamer7 8y ago
      If you are talking about the Linux kernel. Then yes, a kernel relicense is absolutely required.
      • csdreamer7 8y ago
        I have received a few downvotes. Please note I was answering the above question that a relicense is absolutely required for compatibility with the Apache v2 license because of the patent provision that is incompatible with the GPL v2. This is the position of the Free Software Foundation. The GPL v3 has a patent provision and explicit compatibility with the Apache v2 license to end any ambiguities.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]