4 ms·
The example clause at https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/ does not really make any sense. It first says you can't sell the software and then p
by CogitoCogito 8y ago
The example clause at https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/ does not really make any sense. It first says you can't sell the software and then provides example text below like this:
Software: [name software]
License: [i.e. Apache 2.0]
Licensor: [ABC company]
If they actually used the Apache 2.0 license anyone would have the right to sell the software. Hence putting that clause and then putting "Apache 2.0" as the license makes no sense. The licensing terms would be contradictory.
- binomialxenon 8y agoI agree, it's terribly misleading and could cause a real lack of licensing clarity.
- jahewson 8y agoYes, exactly. You can't use an unmodified Apache 2.0 license and then try and tack on some extra clause which is incompatible with the underlying license and end up with an intelligible end result. You certainly can't call it "Apache 2.0" and direct people to apache.org. It looks like a legal nightmare. Even if you like this license, please never use it!