Hello all,
Although on the surface the language of the Apache 2.0 license has been
well-discussed, I have not found specific information to answer my
questions.
I am interested in licenses that do not require anything of the user. I
choose to publish my source code, and while I may have desires as to how
that source code is used, I can not truly force my beliefs onto other
people. There are obviously appropriate acknowledgments that are a
matter of honor and respect, but ultimately the choice should be made
freely.
I ask for clarification on the statement:
"You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works
thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or
Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:"
I interpret "provided that You meet the following conditions" to be a
_requirement_ as opposed to a choice. Is this correct?
Second,
"You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that You changed the files;"
If I only distribute object files, am I required to provide patches? Or
the entire modified file?
Third, there is clear intent in the GPL to make everything GPL.
Therefore, I do not read GPL code, because I interpret "derived from" to
include knowledge. I do not see the same intent in the Apache 2.0
license, which does appear to intend to protect both the author and the
open source community. However, the Apache 2.0 license does use the
phrase "derived from" in the definition of "Derivative Works."
If I read Apache 2.0 source code, without copying or modifying it, can I
derive knowledge from that code without being required to then publish
my own code?
Thank you,
tim
--
I stand with the Palestinians and support their rights to be treated as
the indigenous humans on their homelands, and not as something to be
exterminated or removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
