Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 48455 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2011 01:35:03 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Apr 2011 01:35:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 14415 invoked by uid 500); 9 Apr 2011 01:35:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 14205 invoked by uid 500); 9 Apr 2011 01:35:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 43911 invoked by uid 99); 8 Apr 2011 14:21:37 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.9 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) To: legal-discuss@apache.org Subject: Apache V2 license interpretation Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 10:20:48 -0400 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-AOL-IP: 174.119.138.161 X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Alex Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CDC40F4AA4F2CD_21B4_9C36_web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: Mail.com Webmail 33490-STANDARD Message-Id: <8CDC40F4AA2916B-21B4-49AC@web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com> X-AOL-SENDER: arykov@iname.com X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Flag: NO ----------MB_8CDC40F4AA4F2CD_21B4_9C36_web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The company I am currently working for has prohibitively strict rules of= certifying third party software libraries used in their applications. Yet= , they don't mind large chunks of "custom" code in their packages.=20 The question they asked in the past was whether license at the top of sour= ce files provided under Apache v2 license can be removed(don't ask me why)= if they only use software in their application. If I read the license cor= rectly, the answer is "yes, they can"(since they don't redistribute the co= de or derived work further). Do I read this correctly? Regards, Alex ----------MB_8CDC40F4AA4F2CD_21B4_9C36_web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" The company I am currently working= for has prohibitively strict rules of certifying third party software lib= raries used in their applications. Yet, they don't mind large chunks of "c= ustom" code in their packages. 

The question they asked in the past was whether license at the top= of source files provided under Apache v2 license can be removed(don't ask= me why) if they only use software in their application. If I read the lic= ense correctly, the answer is "yes, they can"(since they don't redistribut= e the code or derived work further). Do I read this correctly?

Regards,
Alex

----------MB_8CDC40F4AA4F2CD_21B4_9C36_web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com--