Talk:Apache License

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance). Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

What language is this in? Chinese? Everytime I read such lawyer gooble di gook I choose creative commons and trash the library that has such a licence.

This entry designated Apache 2.0 as a Copyfree license, but the citation stated otherwise (Apache 2.0 is listed as a license rejected by the Copyfree foundation.) I changed the designation from "Yes" to "No." Asauers (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think some mention should be made of OpenBSD rejecting the newer Apache licenses and sticking with Apache 1.3.29. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.110.241.254 (talk • contribs).

I think there should be at least a mention of BSD licences - they're almost identical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.7.9.36 (talk • contribs).

While I agree mention of both the

BSD licence and OpenBSD's rejection of the additonal restrictions used on the newer Apache licence should be made, I really disagree that the BSD and Apache licences are almost identical. Janizary 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree (see http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=107714762916291&w=2) Øs (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search on SourceForge and found 1909 projects under the Apache License (2.0) and 1131 under the Apache Software Licence. 35 showed up as being under both licenses. I couldn't determine how many are projects of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) - I assume that most are not because those that are would be hosted on apache.org rather than SourceForge. Anyway the search results page uses either POST or XML RPC so I can't provide a link to the results as a citation (and it might be construed as not good enough if I didn't check how many are non-ASF projects). Anyway, there's my research on the topic. —tedp 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No ASF projects are hosted outside of the ASF itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.6.57 (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the UW IMAP because I noticed it's at least currently under Apache License. // mika 20070806

I've completely removed the "list of software licensed under the Apache License" part.

As for the ASF software listed, the article already says

All software produced by the ASF or any of its projects or subjects is licensed according to the terms of the Apache License

The rest of the list- I don't think contributes any to the article. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Thanks, OSborn^arf 05:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does help to mention what popular software is released under the license. Possibly don't mention Apache software (since all of it is published under the license) but mention Android and SVN for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpatico qa (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been reading through the 2.0 license and I don’t see the possibility to ‘include the license by reference’. The license still has the clause

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

which seems to contradict this. H. (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article states

"The Apache License does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license nor even that it be distributed as free/open-source software."

But I don't think that's right. It should not read "modified versions of" but rather "modifications to"

If you read Section 4 of the license it states:

"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."

This means that the modification made by a third party may be under a different license, but that the original code still retains the original license.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.32.254 (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. For some reason, though, many people interpret pretty much any open source license that isn't copyleft as a license that allows itself to be removed from the covered work, which is simply incorrect. - Apotheon (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an inconsistency in the Licensing Conditions statement and the GPL Compatibility statement. The former says that it is NOT a copyleft license, while the latter says that it is. Also the inset box at the top claims v. 2 is GPS compatible. It is not clear to me whether it is or is not, but the article seems to contain contradictory statements. TundraGreen (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that: every GPLv3 license is an Apache License 2.0 (i.e. it satisfies it). On the contrary, not every Apache License 2.0 is a GPLv3 (since Apache is more permissive). If my understanding is correct, I'd replace it with the current wording:

It should be noted, however, that there is a one-way incompatibility between the Apache version 2 and GPL version 3 licenses, in that you cannot include GPL version 3 code in an Apache project without activating the requirement that the entire project be relicensed under the GPL version 3.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpatico qa (talk • contribs) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to further clarify this compatibility. It is misleading to call this "a one-way incompatibility". It is normal for a license that is quoted to be "compatible with GPL 3" to mean that it is a subset of GPL 3 and thus combining it with other GPL 3 code would require the GPL 3 license. 124.148.145.109 (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some recent (as of this writing) contention over phrasing of the GPL Compatibility section, particularly as regards whether what the Apache License 2.0 applies as a subset of same from GPLv3 is "permissions", "rights", "restrictions", or whatever. I was of the opinion that "conditions" or "restrictive terms" probably would have been most accurate in regard to the matter of applying a subset of some term specifics in GPLv3, as the license terms in question were restrictive conditions applied to the permissions granted by the license, though I never got around to suggesting such rewordings until now. Most recently (again, as of this writing), Wikipedian User:Belorn has applied an edit that avoids the entire point of contention over specific choice of phrasing on that matter, and I think Belorn's solution solves the whole matter neatly. I just figured I'd chronicle my thoughts on the matter here in case someone else comes along trying to sort out recent edits and actually checks the talk page for details. - Apotheon (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this does not precede any separate agreements ...

(emphasis added) - did the author of this mean preclude, by any chance?

If not please be so kind as to say so here because this seems unclear.

--217.81.153.94 (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "Apache License" is used too much in the intro. It sounds awkward and is distracting. Anyone agree/want to modify it? 71.182.135.2 (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several years later, I edited down the usage of "Apache License" in the lead. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

== APACHE LICENSE, VERSION 2.0 (CURRENT)

==

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 ( TXT or HTML )

The 2.0 version of the Apache License was approved by the ASF in 2004. The goals of this license revision have been to reduce the number of frequently asked questions, to allow the license to be reusable without modification by any project (including non-ASF projects), to allow the license to be included by reference instead of listed in every file, to clarify the license on submission of contributions, to require a patent license on contributions that necessarily infringe the contributor's own patents, and to move comments regarding Apache and other inherited attribution notices to a location outside the license terms (the NOTICE file ).

The result is a license that is supposed to be compatible with other open source licenses, while remaining true to the original goals of the Apache Group and supportive of collaborative development across both nonprofit and commercial organizations. The Apache Software Foundation is still trying to determine if this version of the Apache License is compatible with the GPL.

All packages produced by the ASF are implicitly licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0, unless otherwise explicitly stated. More developer documentation on how to apply the Apache License to your work can be found in * Applying the Apache License, Version 2.0 *.

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1

The 1.1 version of the Apache License was approved by the ASF in 2000. The primary change from the 1.0 license is in the 'advertising clause' (section 3 of the 1.0 license); derived products are no longer required to include attribution in their advertising materials, only in their documentation.

Individual packages licensed under the 1.1 version may have used different wording due to varying requirements for attribution or mark identification, but the binding terms were all the same. == APACHE LICENSE, VERSION 1.0 (HISTORIC) == http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.0

This is the original Apache License which applies only to older versions of Apache packages (such as version 1.2 of the Web server).

CONTRIBUTOR LICENSE AGREEMENTS The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to any Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via fax or email) an Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA). The purpose of this agreement is to clearly define the terms under which intellectual property has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future time. A signed ICLA is required to be on file before an individual is given commit rights to an ASF project.

For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual property via the corporation, that may have been assigned as part of an employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need for every developer to sign their own ICLA as an individual, to cover any of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the CCLA.

The ICLA is not tied to any employer you may have, so it is recommended to use one's personal email address in the contact details, rather than an @work address.

Your Full name will be published unless you provide an alternative Public name. For example if your full name is Andrew Bernard Charles Dickens, but you wish to be known as Andrew Dickens, please enter the latter as your Public name.

The email address and other contact details are not published.

I have added a mentioning of the patent clause in version 2.0, but I think it needs a better explanation of what this means to derivative works. Can anybody help clarify this, please? Agnerf (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]