by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday September 04, 2004 @02:28PM (#10158320)
I'm interested in using the library but confused by the terms of the license.
If I *statically* link to the APR in a commercial software product, what are the consequences? Especially when the commercial software is distributed in binary form only.
Disclaimer: Your not paying for this; this is not legal advice. For that, contact a lawyer in your juristriction.
By my reading of the liscence, it makes absolutly no distinction between static and dynamic linking. Therefore, the only way that it could cause a difference is within the definition of a 'derived work'. To quote the licence:
"Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
If you link, or bind by name, to the interfaces of the Work, then your code is not a derived work. Thus, the only applicable terms in the licence are those that govern use and distribution of the code. The licence grants you the right to distribute in source or object form the work.
Accordingly, my reading is that this is semantically virtually equivlent to the BSD licence for case specified (and, in fact, the same as BSD for pretty much any case of use and distribution).
Short answer: Stick a mention of it in the NOTICE text file, tell people what liscene the Work (in this case the APR) was under, and go ahead.
Interestingly, this licence would, as I read it, allow you to make a derived work, and redistribute that in binary form only. It doesn't grant you the right to change liscence, or apply restrictions, so a Derived Work wouldn't work as a commerical product (as the first purachaser can redisribute it).
But, as it specifically excludes linking to the interfeces specified, then for a Work which is a library [0], the only clause that imparts any restriction is 4(d) [1]
In fact, I can see no part of the liscence that would prevent one from taking a program under this liscence, creating a Derived Work that is that program implemented as a library, with well defined interfaces, and then linking to said library from a commercial/closed program. There is no requirement to publish Derived Works [2]. The only mildly non-obvious outcome is that if the library was extracted from the final disribution, the licence allows for its free distribution and use, which is not a restriction.
Of course, if this is for commerical software, you'll have the money to speak to a lawyer licence to practice in your juristriction first.
[0] And where that library is used unmodified [1] And the expiration of patent licences in event of you issuing a patent suit. [2] Only that you make any changes clear if you do publish.
Interested, but confused by Apache License 2.0 (Score:4, Interesting)
If I *statically* link to the APR in a commercial software product, what are the consequences? Especially when the commercial software is distributed in binary form only.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Re:Interested, but confused by Apache License 2.0 (Score:4, Informative)
By my reading of the liscence, it makes absolutly no distinction between static and dynamic linking. Therefore, the only way that it could cause a difference is within the definition of a 'derived work'. To quote the licence:
If you link, or bind by name, to the interfaces of the Work, then your code is not a derived work. Thus, the only applicable terms in the licence are those that govern use and distribution of the code. The licence grants you the right to distribute in source or object form the work.
Accordingly, my reading is that this is semantically virtually equivlent to the BSD licence for case specified (and, in fact, the same as BSD for pretty much any case of use and distribution).
Short answer: Stick a mention of it in the NOTICE text file, tell people what liscene the Work (in this case the APR) was under, and go ahead.
Interestingly, this licence would, as I read it, allow you to make a derived work, and redistribute that in binary form only. It doesn't grant you the right to change liscence, or apply restrictions, so a Derived Work wouldn't work as a commerical product (as the first purachaser can redisribute it).
But, as it specifically excludes linking to the interfeces specified, then for a Work which is a library [0], the only clause that imparts any restriction is 4(d) [1]
In fact, I can see no part of the liscence that would prevent one from taking a program under this liscence, creating a Derived Work that is that program implemented as a library, with well defined interfaces, and then linking to said library from a commercial/closed program. There is no requirement to publish Derived Works [2]. The only mildly non-obvious outcome is that if the library was extracted from the final disribution, the licence allows for its free distribution and use, which is not a restriction.
Of course, if this is for commerical software, you'll have the money to speak to a lawyer licence to practice in your juristriction first.
[0] And where that library is used unmodified
[1] And the expiration of patent licences in event of you issuing a patent suit.
[2] Only that you make any changes clear if you do publish.