6

I have cloned a repo under the Apache 2.0 licence and am changing content.

under section 4 of the licence:

a. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and

b. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works

d. You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.

If I am understanding this correctly, my modified file will look like this?

# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""

Copyright 2017 My Example Company

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

NOTICE: THIS FILE HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY <MY EXAMPLE COMPANY> UNDER COMPLIANCE WITH THE APACHE 2.0 LICENCE FROM THE ORIGINAL WORK 
OF THE COMPANY <EXAMPLE PREVIOUS COMPANY>. THE FOLLOWING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT:

Copyright 2016 Example Previous Company

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

"""

1. Is this correct?

2. What should I name the original copyright notice? If I should keep it the same name, what should I name my new copyright notice if it differs?

3. In the same way, what should the NOTICE file be called?

8
  1. Yes this is correct but you do not need to duplicate the same Apache notice twice. Instead you could use this simpler and more useful form IMHO:

Copyright 2017 My Example Company

Copyright 2016 Example Previous Company

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.

You may obtain a copy of the License at

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

This file has been modified by My Example Company to add support for foo and get faster baz processing.

2 & 3. Why would you want to rename files there? Juts keep them the same name and add your stuffs to these if needed.

  • 2
    The ASF has a policy for NOTICE use by Apache projects: apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html This doesn't all apply to use, but I definitely agree you should keep the same NOTICE / LICENSE files and just add any additional comments about your work to the top, as suggested here. Thanks for taking care to respect licenses! – Shane Curcuru Feb 17 '17 at 17:59
  • @ShaneCurcuru FWIW, as you most likely surely know, the Apache license makes an explicit mention of a file named "NOTICE" ... so I am not sure it would be OK to rename this file to anything else when the upstream codebase (from Apache or else) contains such a named file. – Philippe Ombredanne Dec 7 '17 at 7:07
  • Always newer on top, right? (Because tradition?) – uprego Sep 9 '18 at 17:13

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.