rfidiot license

[nmav]

Hello,
What is the actual license of rfidiot? I had the impression that it was GPLv2, but it seems it has additional restrictions. The license in rfidiot-cli.py mentions:
"For non-commercial use only, the following terms apply - for all other uses, please contact the author:"
and an excerpt of GPLv2 follows.

You cannot impose additional restrictions to GPLv2, such as non-commercial use only, so clearly this isn't not a GPLv2-licensed application.

[nmav]

There are also the bundled pynfc.py and pyandroid.py which are under GPLv3+. Thus even if the non-commercial clause above was removed, the combination would have to be under GPLv3+.

[kirelagin]

an excerpt of GPLv2 follows.

You cannot impose additional restrictions to GPLv2, such as non-commercial use only, so clearly this isn't not a GPLv2-licensed application.

There is no such paragraph in GPLv2. Section 6 actually says:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. <…>

And it is clear that this paragraph is meant to impose restrictions on that a person modifying the original work can do. That author of the original work can pretty much impose any restrictions he wants. This is called multi-licensing.

But your second comment is crucial. Those two files that are licensed under GPLv3+ are obviously included in the distribution and that means that all of RFIDIOt has to be distributed under GPLv3+.

[nmav]

And it is clear that this paragraph is meant to impose restrictions on that a person modifying the
original work can do. That author of the original work can pretty much impose any restrictions he
wants. This is called multi-licensing.

Technically you may be correct. In practice this is not what multi-licensing is. That is because no matter what restrictions the author wants to put, if he gives even one person the software licensed under GPLv2 (i.e., here the ones who receive it under the non-commercial clause), that person is then free to distribute it under GPLv2 proper. That is any additional restrictions are lifted. In any case, I'm not interested to argue more about that, I'd prefer to hear what are the authors' opinion on the license of the project.