[Fedora-legal-list] Fwd: Re: [Scratch] scratch gpl licensing -- combining with apache, and gpl v3

[Richard Fontana]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 02:13:08PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 01:02:44PM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
> > > That original Squeak image is a mix of MIT and Apache 2.0 license. My
> > > concern is whether the final, combined image must be under the GPL v2
> > > license. My non-lawyer understanding is that it must, because it's certainly
> > > not a case of "mere aggregation". But upstream's explanation is that it's
> > > okay.
> > If the case is just one where the Scratch binary depends on the Squeak
> > VM to run, but they are separate code bases, there should be no issue.
> > Is that the situation?
> 
> It sounds like it from the MIT explanation, but, no. The Scratch binary is
> itself derived from the Squeak image (which is a separate thing from the
> Squeak VM). In that image, there are classes begining with "Scratch-", which
> are the new Scratch code and licensed under the GPL v2. There is also
> original Squeak code, under a combination of MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses.
> 
> The question basically comes down to: is distributing that together okay
> under the GPL v2?

So everything MIT has written here is what is licensed under GPLv2?

 - RF