Hi, If you need legal advice, you should ask a lawyer, but hopefully, this might help.
> "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? Yes, they are requirements. > "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? No you are not required to provide patches or modified files. The Apache license is a permissive license and not a copyleft-style license. > 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? Again, being a permissive license, you don't have to publish your source code if you don't want to. You can take Apache licensed code, combine it with other code, and release that as a binary under a non-OS license and not provide your source code. Of course, if you don’t provide the source code then it’s not open source. Kind Regards, Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
