hoijui
commented
3 years ago I would like that move! I did a tiny research, and found that it should be possible quite easily (legally speaking); see this example from OpenCV: https://opencv.org/opencv-is-to-change-the-license-to-apache-2/
They were using BSD-3-clause, you are using BSD-2-clause, which makes matters only easier, not harder for you. The key-"trick", I think, is what they describe in the short article above like this:
... we are going to make immediate internal “fork” of OpenCV in the same repository, with the reference to the original license and all the original copyrights. Users, who absolutely need BSD license for their products ... can continue to use OpenCV 2.x ... up to OpenCV 4.4 inclusively.
Without this "forking trick", as I know it, legally speaking, you would have to ask all participants that ever provided code to the project if they are willing to re-license/dual-license under APLv2. I call it "trick", but it is nothing unethical or immoral at all. The BSD licenses clearly and consciously allow code to be used elsewhere with a different license, as long as the original license info is supplied (and followed in practice, which it is under the APLv2).
There are verbose and detailed analysis to be found on stack* sites about a move from BSD to APL, if one is interested.
Since we have snippets of the reflection code users the Apache 2.0 license already applies. Apache 2.0 is basically BSD but slightly more restrictive and libGDX users are already familiar with Apache 2.0 so it might make sense to switch to a single license for clarity sake. What do you think @junkdog? (cc: @hoijui)
IANAL, would suspect it is ok to drop the original license since it follows the same spirit, as long as we retain the copyright info in a NOTICE file.
For background: #601