3 ms·

I am not a lawyer, but doesn't the Apache license specifically grant the right to redistribute the source code? > You may reproduce and distribute copies of th

• mbreese 3y ago
  But what if you never had the source form? You can’t redistribute what you never had… This is actually an interesting question. But I can’t see how a binary only distribution would be in the spirit of the Apache license.
  • ilc 3y ago
    It is the very reason the license exists. It is in the spirit and the letter of the license to do binary only distribution. Why do you think so many companies are pushing the Apache License 2.0 over the GPL?
    • mbreese 3y ago
      I thought the reason was the explicit patent language and lack of license virality. The Apache license 2 is pretty clear that binary only distribution is allowed, but I think it’s also clear that the assumption is that source is available in some form. Otherwise, why would you care about derivative works? As is, it would be possible to decompile the JVM code into something resembling source code and then distribute that with or without modification. Which just seems odd to me.
  • jrmg 3y ago
    It’s runs on a JVM, right? Presumably it could be decompiled and cleaned up (might be a massive task - but possible), and the reconstructed source would fall under the Apache license. What a weird choice to make.