3 ms·

> It assumes you understand the Apache 2.0 license and makes no attempt to clarify that businesses can use the open source version. The authors are absolutely

> It assumes you understand the Apache 2.0 license and makes no attempt to clarify that businesses can use the open source version. The authors are absolutely operating in bad faith here. The summary at the top completely omits the case of commercial users building from source, and the language confusion between "use Caddy" vs "use or distribute official Caddy binaries" intentionally tries to confuse the matter. > Remember that building Caddy from source is still subject to the Apache 2.0 license which requires attribution and stating changes. This is incorrect. Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2. It is only when you decide to embed it in an on-premises version that you sell to customers (who run it on their infrastructure) does the disclosure requirement kick in.

yorwba 9y ago
> Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2. You have to follow the terms of the license whenever you distribute it to someone. Unless you are a single-person shop, that might include employees who have access to the binaries but aren't actually interested in the source. You still have to appropriately disclose changes and keep the attribution notices. You don't have to notify users who just access the server over the network, but the statement isn't factually incorrect: Apache 2.0 still applies.
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  Apache 2 license applies, the question is whether attribution and disclosure are required. And the answer is "Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2." Disclosure is required when selling on-premises software that includes the project in question
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Are you saying that installing the software on your infrastructure or checking the code into source control doesn't constitute redistribution, even when others have access to these? IANAL, but it seems to me that the license requires you to give each recipient appropriate notice, no matter what your relationship with the recipient is. I'm interested why you wouldn't have to take any of the actions listed at https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#redistribution https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#redistribution
    - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
      Let's take a simple example of deploying Caddy on a digital ocean droplet that you are paying for. The end user in that case is you, not the people who access web pages served by Caddy since they are not receiving a copy of Caddy in the course of using your site. To tie back to the original comment: > It is only when you decide to embed it in an on-premises version that you sell to customers (who run it on their infrastructure) does the disclosure requirement kick in. In that situation, when dealing with an on-premises deployment with another person or organization, the end user is the counterparty. You are required to disclose to them, but they are not required to disclose to users of their web site. Note: this type of scenario is why AGPL emerged in the first place.
      - yorwba 9y ago
        Now what happens when you have a colleague who logs into your droplet to configure the Caddy server. Have you distributed the binary to them? Are they entitled to seeing the original NOTICE file?
        true_religion 9y ago
        No. This is a simple case of someone else using software on your machine. Similarly, You aren't distributing "Windows" every-time someone logs into do remote tech support.

yorwba 9y ago

> Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2. You have to follow the terms of the license whenever you distribute it to someone. Unless you are a single-person shop, that might include employees who have access to the binaries but aren't actually interested in the source. You still have to appropriately disclose changes and keep the attribution notices. You don't have to notify users who just access the server over the network, but the statement isn't factually incorrect: Apache 2.0 still applies.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
Apache 2 license applies, the question is whether attribution and disclosure are required. And the answer is "Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2." Disclosure is required when selling on-premises software that includes the project in question
- yorwba 9y ago
  Are you saying that installing the software on your infrastructure or checking the code into source control doesn't constitute redistribution, even when others have access to these? IANAL, but it seems to me that the license requires you to give each recipient appropriate notice, no matter what your relationship with the recipient is. I'm interested why you wouldn't have to take any of the actions listed at https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#redistribution https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#redistribution
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    Let's take a simple example of deploying Caddy on a digital ocean droplet that you are paying for. The end user in that case is you, not the people who access web pages served by Caddy since they are not receiving a copy of Caddy in the course of using your site. To tie back to the original comment: > It is only when you decide to embed it in an on-premises version that you sell to customers (who run it on their infrastructure) does the disclosure requirement kick in. In that situation, when dealing with an on-premises deployment with another person or organization, the end user is the counterparty. You are required to disclose to them, but they are not required to disclose to users of their web site. Note: this type of scenario is why AGPL emerged in the first place.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      Now what happens when you have a colleague who logs into your droplet to configure the Caddy server. Have you distributed the binary to them? Are they entitled to seeing the original NOTICE file?
      - true_religion 9y ago
        No. This is a simple case of someone else using software on your machine. Similarly, You aren't distributing "Windows" every-time someone logs into do remote tech support.