Dual Licensing?

[AmyStephen]

Hi =) Thanks for this cool extension. I wanted to ask if you might consider dual licensing your class by adding "GPL v 2, or later" as one option in addition to your existing Apache License?

The reason I ask is I am hoping to use the class with software that also uses GPL v 2, or later. Apache is compatible with GPL v 3, so that's not a problem. But, by including something that is not compatible with GPL v 2 and only is compatible with GPL v 3 (as is the case with Apache http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html), then the entire distribution would need to be GPL v 3. That's not an easy step to make for a community project.

If you prefer not to use dual licensing, I certainly understand and absolutely respect a free software developer's right to make those calls. I thought I might ask to see if you had considered and might be willing to do so.

Kind regards.

[hakre]

@AmyStephen For which project were you aiming? It's perhaps easier to make an arrangement with the project that wants to use the class, to add an exception for linking against that class? Otherwise I'm sure the class is not that overly complex that you can't re-implement under GPLv2+ within a day or two.

Perhaps even faster if you do TDD, so something everybody could profit from. At least faster than waiting 2+ years for a dual-licensing-request-reply :)

Just curious.

[marsjaninzmarsa]

The reason I ask is I am hoping to use the class with software that also uses GPL v 2, or later.

GPLv3 matches the condition "GPLv2 or later", I believe? 🙃