On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:08:03 -0500, Yigal Chripun <yigal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Robert Jacques wrote:
The Apache 2.0 license requires attribution. It's therefore unsuitable
for a standard library. From the website FAQ:
"
It forbids you to:
redistribute any piece of Apache-originated software without proper
attribution;
use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that
might state or imply that the Foundation endorses your distribution;
use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that
might state or imply that you created the Apache software in question.
It requires you to:
include a copy of the license in any redistribution you may make that
includes Apache software;
provide clear attribution to The Apache Software Foundation for any
distributions that include Apache software.
"
excerpts from http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
"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.
4. Redistribution. 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; and
2. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that You changed the files; and
3. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that
You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution
notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that
do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
/quote
my understanding of the above is that using tango in your code doesn't
constitute as "Derivative Works". that means that _uesrs_ of Tango are
not required to provide attribution.
First, according to international copyright law (Berne convention),
compiling source code creates a derivative work. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_License for some links)
Second, 4.1 explicitly require you to provide the license with all
distributions.
Third, Apache's FAQ, which was written by lawyers, instruct users to
include the license/attribution.
Finally, the linking divide, allows you link together code licensed under
different licensees. I believe the GPL also has a similar clause. It
doesn't mean that if you distribute a compiled copy of the library (either
explicitly as a dll/so or by statically linking it in) you don't have to
include the Apache license. You just don't have to license your
application which uses Tango under the Apache license.
There was a large discussion a while back about this, and essentially
there are only 2 licenses suitable for a standard library: Boost and
zlib/libpng (And technically WTFYW).
