kornelski
commented
3 years ago I'm aware of this issue. GPL isn't unique here. Squoosh uses many codecs, which are under various licenses, and even free-as-in-free-labor-for-corporations licenses don't allow implicit relicensing as Apache 2.0.
However, Google is free to license their own parts of Squoosh (the JavaScript UI) under Apache 2.0. Only the combined product has to abide by all the licenses together, which does make it Apache + GPL + IJG + BSD + MIT + etc. together.
The squoosh.app site links to the repo, and the repo labels licenses of individual codecs correctly, so I don't see any legal problem with this (that usage is GPL-compliant as far as I can tell).
The fact that GitHub shows the whole project as Apache 2.0 is misleading. If someone took GitHub's label at face value, they could end up violating all of the licenses of non-Apache 2.0 codecs in the project. But I don't see a problem with the current usage by Google.
dtugend
I filed an issue with them:
https://github.com/GoogleChromeLabs/squoosh/issues/842
However judging by their reply seems like they just plan to ignore it, even though they have been using and relicensing it under Apache 2.0 since 2+ years.
Your imagequant library used is under GPL3.
Squoosh is under Apache 2.0 and very likely to be considered a derviative work as defined by GPL3.
However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects.
So I am asking you if you are aware of them relencensing your library under incompatible terms and if this is legal from your point of view.