Re: [ft-devel] [ft] FreeType License and patents

[Dave Crossland]

On 17 January 2012 09:25, David Turner <address@hidden> 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