Apache 2 License vs OSI definition

John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Fri Jul 17 10:52:10 UTC 2009

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

> 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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list