2 ms·
Check out this license for example: https://github.com/tinacms/tinacms/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/tinacms/tinacms/blob/main/LICENSE It's an Apache 2.
by hoofhearted 3y ago
Check out this license for example: https://github.com/tinacms/tinacms/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/tinacms/tinacms/blob/main/LICENSE
It's an Apache 2.0 license, but with addendums.
Would it be reasonable to say that I could fork their repo for own purposes, and argue in court that I was only familar with Apache 2.0, and not their modified terms?
- themerone 3y agoNot a lawyer, but I really think that depends on how you communicate the license. If the website, GitHub page, and documentation say: Released under the Apache 2.0 license, with no mentions of addendums, I think you would have a strong case. I suggest changing the name, to avoid any confusion, do not consider it to be legal advice.
- hoofhearted 3y agoThank you for you thoughts! I greatly appreciate them! I understand 100% now what you mean, and as a non lawyer but technical person, I would easily argue the points above if did ever find myself in that battle : ) I've also learned in my couple years of being an innovater that patents, copyrights, trademarks, and licenses are only as good as the legal counsel you can afford to retain to fight your battles.