Apache 2 License vs OSI definition

Johannes Buchner buchner.johannes at gmx.at
Fri Jul 17 01:34:08 UTC 2009


I am confused atm by the following question:

OSI definition states in (2):
  "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is
not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means
of obtaining the source code ..."

On the other hand, the Apache 2 license states nothing in this regard,
and one can find in the FAQ [0]:
  "It does not require you to:
    * include the source of the Apache software itself, or of any
modifications you may have made to it, in any redistribution you may
assemble that includes it"

I realise that Apache 2 is not a viral license, but if you do not have
to give away your modified source code or the original source code,
/ever/, how can it be OSI-certified?

I am sorry if this is covered in a previous question or FAQ.

Best regards,

[0] http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
Emails können geändert, gefälscht und eingesehen werden. Signiere oder
verschüssele deine Mails mit GPG.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20090717/1db7c0fd/attachment.sig>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list