25

For the Apache 2.0 License, there is both the legal code, and what you need to "apply" the license to the work in question. Having a license file provides the legal code. That's great, but it doesn't tell me the specifics... does that license really apply here? When did the license take effect? The Apache page goes on to instruct you how to place it in ...


18

As the copyright holder you are in no way bound by any open source license you choose to distribute your own work under. While you cannot retroactively change the license terms of a particular distribution of your software for those who have already obtained it, you can permit use and re-distribution under the terms of a more permissive license of any ...


17

If by I've been asked to make an application you mean that you were hired to create an application, the answer to your question depends on the contract you have with your employer (if you work for a company) or customer (if you are a freelancer). If you are an employee, generally your employer owns all of the work you produce for them. In this case you do ...


15

First of all: if you or your company are the only contributors to the commercial project and you don't use contributions made by thirds to the OS-part, you can do whatever you like. If you use contributions made to the OS-version of your software you are bound to the license it is under (or you have an Contributors license agreement, but let's assume you ...


14

There are two, completely independent, forms of intellectual property rights that can be used to protect software against unwanted copying/modification: Copyright Patents Copyright protects the "expression of an idea" and applies to the source code that gets written. Copyright protection is granted automatically at the moment that the code is written. ...


12

This depends in part on what the CLA requires, but it may be possible. Do you have the ability to reuse the submission at all? In general, it's understood that contributions to an open source project are offered under the same license as the project at large. In particular, the text of Apache License 2.0 makes this explicit: Submission of ...


12

Just adding another take on the question, hopefully to complement D. SM's excellent answer. You say that you're writing an application and you want to use a GPLv2 library in it. You fully understand this will mean releasing the entire program you write under GPLv2, and honouring the licence (providing source to anyone to whom you provide the binaries, etc.)...


12

If I fork a library that uses the GPL3 license and heavily modify it, can I then release the new library with an ApacheV2 license No, you may not. Your library is still, by your own admission, a derivative of the original GPLv3 code. GPLv3 s5c says that if you convey a derivative work, you must do so under GPLv3. I've also contacted the original project'...


11

(Here's my best guess. This is obviously a very hairy problem to work through, and I've tried my best to reduce the problem down to basic principles. However, I may gotten some of those basic principles incorrect. It should go without saying that this is not legal advice.) The Apache License 2.0 (APL) is incompatible with the GPLv2 simply because of the ...


11

If you hold the copyright to some code (usually, because you are the author), you may license that code however you please, and you may issue different licenses at any time. The matter of revoking previously-issued licenses is much trickier and may not be possible. If you have previously issued permission to modify/distribute your code under some version of ...


11

Your understanding is incorrect. Patents are intellectual property rights that exist to protect an invention. They are distinct from copyrights, which protect the expression of an idea. Inventions protected by patents can have a software component (or in some cases be completely covered by software). The additional text in the BSD-3-Clause-Clear license ...


10

No, there is no universal definition of “file” that is accepted in all jurisdictions. However, this technical term is easy to understand and unambiguous in most applications of the license, and therefore does not present a problem. Your particular mention of TCP is not an issue here because TCP is not used for data storage but for data transmission. In many ...


10

French courts definitely don't have a problem with licences in foreign languages. Two French courts (a lower court and the court of appeal) have upheld the GPL, which is not written in French. (Yes, translations are available, but the FSF makes clear that they are for unofficial guidance only, and that only the English-language original has legal force.) ...


9

Open source allows you to create derivative works. That means you can create a derivative work which reduces the functionality to those parts you consider essential. But remember that you need to comply with the license terms of the library, even when you only take selected parts of it. Almost all open source licenses have an attribution clause, including ...


9

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that has a law that explicitly states that a license notice must be included in each file, or conversely that it need not be included in each file. In all countries that have ratified the Berne convention, all works are subject to copyright, whether they include a copyright notice or not. (A copyright notice may help, ...


9

The best option is to create a NOTICE (or perhaps NOTICE.txt or NOTICE.md) file in the root of your project code containing an introduction/summary, a list of copyright holders/project names and then all three license texts one after the other. And at the top of each source code file make sure you preserve the original copyright/license notice (optionally ...


9

Basically, this is designed to protect against using the patent system to circumvent the licence terms. The first clause means that if I publish anything under this licence, the users are assured that I will not sue them for breach of my patents, as an implicit licence on these is included. The second clause revokes that right in case someone creates a ...


9

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 ...


9

The LICENSE file in the repository contains the text of two licenses (the Apache 2.0 and the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0) and between those is a very important paragraph All image and audio files (including *.png, *.jpg, *.svg, *.mp3, *.wav and *.ogg) are licensed under the CC-BY-NC license. All other files are licensed under the Apache 2 license. This paragraph ...


8

You should comply with the terms of the Apache License. If you copy AL-licensed source code verbatim, you should keep that license on that source code. if you make a derived work, you can change the license, but you have to comply with the terms of the license. All that you need to know can be found here; I quote: I'VE MADE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE APACHE CODE; ...


8

Can I license the resulting library under apache 2.0 or do I have to keep it MIT? The MIT license is a permissive license which allows relicensing under other license terms as long as the original MIT copyright message is retained. Is there any problem with rebranding it as new product? No, the MIT license puts no further conditions besides the ...


8

I do it this way: I add a proper Apache notice and copyright at the top of the file I document in comments where I took the code from and what I took I document in comments any changes I did I add a copy of the Apache license to go with the code if originally present, I copy and carry with the code any NOTICE-like file that was with the original code


8

Bootstrap relicensed itself with release v3.1 (Jan 2014). Leading up to that, previous contributors were contacted to relicense their changes (see twbs/bootstrap#2054), and new contributors had to agree to dual-license their code under both the MIT and Apache 2 licenses for a period of time. As discussed in twbs/bootstrap#2054 (comment) they did have to ...


7

You can certainly try. Instead of including the entire license, you could have this: Copyright (c) 2016 Thomas Owens. All rights reserved. This work is licensed under the terms of the MIT license. For a copy, see <https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>. In theory (IANAL), this should stand up in court, since you're still making it pretty obvious how ...


7

Thinking of this a bit more, it benefits large projects, and sort of gives a clear answer to why many companies open source projects use the Apache license (Apple's Swift programming language comes to mind). The patent clause helps the health of the project, not necessarily the end users, or the maintainers (which was my perspective). Many large open source ...


7

It is recommended in many places, including by the license writers, to include the license header as well as the license file. Some reasons for this are: it clearly demonstrates what the license applies to it points to the full license The license file itself can then contain solely the license, without having to list everything it applies to.


7

The Apache License 2.0 states that: 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 ...


7

From section 4 sub-section a, You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License There's no requirement of where it should be. Google's Play Music uses some Apache 2.0 licenses. They display them in Settings > Open source licenses. I've seen some apps have put a link called Legal Information on the about dialog ...


7

The license says: 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 (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to ...


7

Yes, this is considered redistribution. If not what would?


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible