Am 04.04.2017 um 13:27 schrieb Nicolas Dufour:
I'm the sole author. So I could indeed choose the license I wish. But I'm not very attached to code ownership in FLOSS project, and consider that my code is owned by the Inkscape project. In that context I need to be sure that dual-licensing it would not hurt the project (e.g. by limiting contributions). Is there any case of dual licensing in the actual code? (A quick grep returned no positive result, but maybe I didn't format it correctly.)
This won't cause any issues. The licenses exist in parallel and re-users can use the license which best suits their need. (They obviously can't mix licenses, though). If the code was dual-licensed as GPLv2 and later or Apache license it can be included in Inkscape code following the terms of GPLv2 and later and Judah can use it under the terms of the Apache license.
Am 04.04.2017 um 12:36 schrieb Martin Owens:
It might be better to license it as GPLv2 or GPLv3, since I believe GPLv3 is compatible with Apache2.
https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
Martin,
That won't work. You can use code licensed under Apache license in GPLv3 projects, but not the other way round. Also Inkscape aims to be GPLv2+ as Nicolas mentioned. We can therefore not include GPLv3 code (as GPLv3 is more restrictive then GPLv2).
Regards, Eduard