Because that (should) mean that the portion that pertains to the project itself is MIT.
They can’t (and shouldn’t try to) relicense anything else they use.
So if you make a piece of code that interfaces with a GPLv2 project, you’re obligated to abide by GPLv2 only for the things that are covered under it. This is what many products and companies do.
I’m not sure if 2.1 in particular covers “tivoization” exactly, but that’s one big reason why v3 was made.
MIT doesn’t prevent that, as it’s more liberal than GPLv2, but it shouldn’t stop it from being compatible either.
Because that (should) mean that the portion that pertains to the project itself is MIT.
They can’t (and shouldn’t try to) relicense anything else they use.
So if you make a piece of code that interfaces with a GPLv2 project, you’re obligated to abide by GPLv2 only for the things that are covered under it. This is what many products and companies do.
I’m not sure if 2.1 in particular covers “tivoization” exactly, but that’s one big reason why v3 was made.
MIT doesn’t prevent that, as it’s more liberal than GPLv2, but it shouldn’t stop it from being compatible either.