Apache 2 License vs OSI definition

[John Cowan]

Johannes Buchner scripsit:

> 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 does not, and the user has no such rights.  But it is not a requirement
of the OSD that the user have access to the source of all derivative
works.

> 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. "

That clause gives you or anyone the right to make modified versions.
It does not compel you or anyone to distribute the source to these
modified versions.

> 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? 

Just so.  You want the GPL, which forbids such conduct.

> I was considering dual-licensing with GPLv3 to allow more mixing with
> other software.

That will not achieve your purpose.  You should license under the GPL only.

-- 
De plichten van een docent zijn divers,         John Cowan
die van het gehoor ook.                         cowan at ccil.org
      --Edsger Dijkstra                         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan