Le Mardi 4 avril 2017 10h25, Eduard Braun <eduard.braun2@...173...> a écrit :
as long as you're the sole author you can add as many licenses as you want (in which case Judah is free to choose a license when re-using your code).
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.)
Le Mardi 4 avril 2017 12h36, Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...> a écrit :
It might be better to license it as GPLv2 or GPLv3, since I believe GPLv3 is compatible with Apache2.
Yes, but if I remember correctly we're trying to get rid of the Gimp rulers code because of its GPLv3 license. And apparently GPLv2 and Apache licenses are not compatible (according to http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv2-compatible_lic...).
So even if it's possible, would it be acceptable for the Inkscape project to have parts of its code dual licensed with GPLv2 and Apache License v2. Regards, -- Nicolas