2

I recently learned that one of the apps on my smartphone is using the Apache 2.0 license, but when reading the in-App EULA i found a "rights of use" section, which severely limits the usage and distribution rights.

Here are some snippets of that EULA:

You are hereby granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable and revocable licence, which may not be sub-licensed, to use the App for your own personal, non-commercial purposes.

You may make copies of the App for backup purposes. You are not granted any further rights to the App.

The App’s source code is published under the terms of the “Apache 2.0 License”

You may not manipulate or change the App.

The licence terms which apply to the App’s source code as well as to third-party components contained in the App are not affected by the granting of rights under this Section.

IMHO, it's pretty obvious that the EULA contradicts the actual license of the repository.

I don't actually intend to distribute, modify or even read the source code of that app, but what if i did? Which terms would actually apply in a case like that? The repository license or the EULA?

For example: does the user get a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable license (Apache 2.0), or do they get a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable, non-commercial license (EULA)?

0
11

You write that you "recently learned that one of the apps on my smartphone is using the Apache 2.0 license", but then you write that the app says that its "source code is published under the terms of the 'Apache 2.0 License'".

Apache2 is a non-copyleft free licence; it doesn't require that redistribution takes place under Apache2. So it's perfectly permissible to distribute source under Apache2 but binaries under a more restrictive licence, and from what you say, this seems to be what's happened.

I don't actually intend to distribute, modify or even read the source code of that app, but what if i did? Which terms would actually apply in a case like that? The repository license or the EULA?

The terms shown would apply (restrictive to the binary, Apache2 to the source). If you don't like having a restricted-rights binary installed, then get hold of the source code, compile it yourself, and load it onto your smartphone. You will then have a copy with no such restrictions.

2
  • Okay, makes sense. So the actual binary from the app store has a commercial license (the EULA), but that doesn't matter in this case since the EULA doesn't apply to the source code. I don't really mind that the binary is restricted, it just seemed weird to me.
    – Felix G
    Oct 26 '20 at 10:09
  • 5
    @FelixG ah, the joys of non-copyleft licences.
    – MadHatter
    Oct 26 '20 at 10:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.