Apache 2 License vs OSI definition

[Dag-Erling Smørgrav]

Johannes Buchner <buchner.johannes at gmx.at> writes:
> 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?

It doesn't, because like the majority of OSI-approved licenses, the
Apache license is not a copyleft license.

> 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
> other software.

Why do you need the Apache license at all?

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des at des.no