License issue with Apache 2.0 vs GPLv2

[dodgepong]

I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, the Apache 2.0 license is not compatible with GPLv2. It is compatible with GPLv3, but according to this page, it doesn't work with GPLv2. Since OBS plugins link against OBS itself, then they, too, must be released under a license compatible with GPLv2.

It's probably not a huge issue -- at least it's open source, after all -- but it should probably be something to consider addressing.

More info: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1357/can-i-link-a-apache-2-0-library-into-software-under-gplv2/1364#1364

[caitp]

Feel free to send me a pull request adding appropriate license GPLv2 license headers for each source file, and updating the root LICENSE file to contain the full GPLv2 text.

[dodgepong]

I mean, I can send a PR, sure, but I feel like changing the license for a project is a big enough deal that it should probably be explicitly done by the project maintainer. It doesn't feel like the kind of thing that should be done via a PR from an external dev to me.

[caitp]

I simply don't have time to do this, and it's not a major issue (there is clearly no patent protection requirements for this project), I have no reason to avoid the same-license requirement of GPLv2 here, and even if I did, I would be SOL for linking with libobs. Consider permission granted to add headers and fixup root LICENSE file, I will review the legal text and sign off.