www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Using Apache 2.0 license in iPhone applications
Date Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:44:25 GMT
Generally this is a "Talk to your lawyer" type question.

Offering my "I am not a lawyer" opinion:

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Vikas Reddy <reddy.vikas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, this is my first time using a mailing list so apologies in advance if I
> commit any mailing list faux pas - please let me know if I have.
> Our company is currently using Apache 2.0 licensed code in our iPhone
> application which is distributed as a compiled binary - no source code. The
> Apache 2.0 license states that
> "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:
> 1. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy
> of this License;"
> For an iPhone application, what constitutes giving the recipients a copy of
> the work? On the iPhone and many other mobile platforms, users have no
> direct access to the file system. In our application we have an info screen
> that has an attribution link that takes users to a webpage describing our
> use of the Apache 2.0 licensed code. This seems to fit better with the
> spirit of the license since otherwise users would have no way to see the
> license file. Is this the right approach with our application? Or can we
> simply include a text file. I came across one discussion that had some
> relevant information, but it didn't really answer my question:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200908.mbox/%3C4FFA9271-8BF6-4CBC-AD47-263C201DBC68@gmail.com%3E
> . One option, as suggested in this linked thread, is to add attribution to
> the iTunes description.

I think this is fine, but as you only say it's AL 2.0 and not an
Apache Software Foundation product, that doesn't mean much. The owner
of the project would be the best to get such an assurance from.

> Also, we are licensing (for money) a compiled library (no source code) that
> we created that uses an Apache 2.0 licensed library (with some modification
> by us) as an independent module. How should other companies that license our
> library include an attribution? Is it sufficient for companies that license
> our library to attribute us in some way, and then we will attribute the
> Apache 2.0 licensed library on our own site?

I would expect them to license the AL 2.0 work themselves. Plus
whatever conditions you set.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message