Nathaniel Smith
That's under Apache 2, so it can't be used by GPLv2 packages, or any package that might be used by GPLv2 packages.
I'm not sure what the claim is here, but it seems false to me. Apache License 2.0 permits a derived work to be released under a different license (even a non-free license). See Apache License 2.0 §4. So a work BAR can be released under GNU GPL (e.g. “version 3 or later”) that derives from work FOO released under Apache License 2.0. The GNU GPL version 3 allows combination with other works with different license conditions, provided those conditions don't impose further restrictions on recipients. See GNU GPL v3 §7, §10, §12. (GPL v2 has different wording with similar effect.) Apache License 2.0 imposes no additional reastrictions on the recipient of a work licensed under GNU GPL v3. So that meets the conditions of both. FOO as a distinct work retains its license conditions, and all recipients of FOO or BAR must comply with its conditions. The work BAR as a whole carries the GNU GPL version (for example) 3 conditions, and all recipients of BAR must comply with its conditions. The two licenses are compatible, as far as I can see. The effective result is a work BAR, licensed as free software under GPL version (e.g.) 3 or later. Does that not match your understanding? Have I misunderstood your claim? -- \ “Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual | `\ profit without individual responsibility.” —Ambrose Bierce, | _o__) _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | Ben Finney