<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="-1"><font face="Arial">Dear John Cowan,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your rapid reply. But OSI approved Apache License v2.0 which
imply it should complied to OSD. However, if just base on the license,
a software using Apache License v2.0 can be not open the source. If so,
why the license can be approved by OSI. Am I missing something?</font></font><br>
<br>
John Cowan wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20080926050220.GQ30848@mercury.ccil.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Arthur Tam scripsit:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I would like to know where Apache
License 2.0 stated the program with such license require to make the
source available (I'm not meaning the 'modified work')? I can find it
in GPLv3. Thanks in advance for any reply.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The Apache license, like most permissive licenses, does not actually
grant you access to the source code: it presumes that you already have it.
It is possible to license a random blob of binary bits under the Apache
License, but the result is not Open Source, as it contravenes OSD #2.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice, but it is not the
unauthorized practice of law, either.
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.avg.com">http://www.avg.com</a>
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.3/1691 - Release Date: 2008/9/25 ¤U¤È 07:23
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>