The Apache 2.0 license defines (emphasis added):
"Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
Then, article 4.a says:
You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
Suppose I'm developing an app which uses a library distributed under the Apache 2.0 license. The distribution channels are the official Android and Apple app stores. My users download, install and manage my app entirely through those channels. As a result, there's never a point in which I'm able to provide any kind of documentation to my users except by one of two means:
In some view inside the app itself or
in the source code, available at its GitWhatever repository.
Now, the app is open source (MIT license), and I can include anything in the source code package that I want. My concern is if I would need to implement functionality in the app itself to display the Apache 2.0 license to users of the app, since I have no other way of providing it to them in the Work in its Object form.
In case it might matter, the Apache 2.0 code in question is not just referenced in the app's build profile (package.json), but is an actual copy, slightly modified. A copy of the Apache 2.0 license already exists in the source code package and the changes are properly denoted as per the Apache 2.0 license.
My concern regards if and how to provide the app's users with the license, given that the distribution channels of the Work in its Object form are out of my control, i.e. whether this scenario requires me to extend the app's functionality to show the license to the end-users of the app, or if I've fulfilled the requirement by including it in the source code package.
Hope I'm being clear. Thanks in advance.