>> Apache 2 is compatible with the GPL 3 family of licenses, it's just not compatible with the GPL 2 family of licenses. I doubt that. I'm not even sure the MI

>> Apache 2 is compatible with the GPL 3 family of licenses, it's just not compatible with the GPL 2 family of licenses. I doubt that. I'm not even sure the MIT license is compatible with GPL because it requires the notice be kept intact, which might be considered an additional condition if the code is merged with GPL licensed code. Apache 2 and GPL 3 might be compatible in spirit, but I doubt they are compatible to the point you can pull some Apache code into a GPL3 project and drop the text of the Apache license. Also, if it is essentially the same terms then there is NO reason to actually have a different license and it just confuses things. IMHO we actually need a new "do whatever you want" license besides MIT and BSD that make zero conditions on derived works or their inclusion of any particular license text. OTOH that would seem to imply you could claim the code as your own in the derived work (and then try to sue people using other legit forks for example).