Apache 2 License vs OSI definition
buchner.johannes at gmx.at
Fri Jul 17 08:21:11 UTC 2009
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:53:12 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> wrote:
> Johannes Buchner <buchner.johannes at gmx.at> writes:
> > 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 ..."
> > [...]
> > 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?
> You're confusing original distribution with redistribution, and the
> open source defintion with the requirements placed on open source
Ah. So a developer receiving my product does not have to give away the
source if he only redistributes. But if he makes modifications, and
releases binaries to a user, where does it state that this user has
the right to get the sources?
Is this covered by (2) in the AL: "Subject to the terms and conditions
of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly
display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such
Derivative Works in Source or Object form. "
I basically don't want that someone can take my software, add some
functionality and distribute/sell it binary-only without ever disclosing
the modifications. Perhaps the Apache 2 License is not right for me? I
was considering dual-licensing with GPLv3 to allow more mixing with
Thank you for your input,
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
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss