Poor Google asking a project to re-license so they can leech it: https://github.com/printfn/fend/issues/281
fend-core license · Issue #281 · printfn/fend

Hello, we're interested in making use of fend-core in Chromium, but the GPLv3 license prevents us from being able to do so. I am opening this issue to see if you'd be open to changing or dual-licen...

GitHub
@fabrice I, too, am intrigued by which aspects make GPLv2 okay for them but not GPLv3.
@ghisvail @fabrice they seem to think the GPL2 is compatible with proprietary code, which it isn’t. Either the guy is confusing it with LGPL or thinks the Linux kernel policy applies for everyone. IANAL though.

@ghisvail @fabrice my guess would be the "anti tivoisation" clause of GPLv3 given that the link is about acceptable license on Android.

Just a guess so.

@hub @fabrice You are probably right. I forgot that Chrome adds DRM and proprietary codecs, which are affected by the tivoization clause in GPLv3.
@fabrice OMG. The IANAL answer to why is just terribad. So many FOSS legal experts would cringe.
@fabrice @nytpu I do not understand why the author is giving in at all.

@lispi314 @fabrice @nytpu Added my experience/input:

"As someone who put in free labor not even relicensing, just getting fallback license for small parts that were clearly public domain, to make Google's lawyers happy, then having them, rather than being good FOSS consumers/citizens and aligning with upstream, just fork and mess up the code for their own bad pet project, I would recommend against doing any licensing work to make Google happy unless they're paying generously for it."

@dalias @lispi314 @fabrice @nytpu I guess it totally went over their head are now MIT licensed....

This is sad.