Talk:Apache License

message: 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)
thread_title: Copyfree Status

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree (see http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=107714762916291&w=2) Øs (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenBSD and newer Apache license 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SourceForge projects 

message: 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, OSbornarf 05:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of software... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  “allowing the license to be included by reference instead of listed in every file”: really? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Correctness of this Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GPL Compatibility 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correct English in this place? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Several years later, I edited down the usage of "Apache License" in the lead. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward Intro 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Patent clause