4 ms·

I don't interpret that to mean that you can violate the terms of the Apache license, but rather that modifications or derivative work can bear a different licen

I don't interpret that to mean that you can violate the terms of the Apache license, but rather that modifications or derivative work can bear a different license. Every user is still bound by the terms of the Apache license, including the patent indemnification clause which does not appear in those other licenses. If you disagree, could you point me to a legal opinion? Note that OpenBSD still ships Apache 1.3 because they believe Apache 2.0 is incompatible. http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0402/msg01095.html http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0402/msg01095.html

belorn 13y ago
Of course you can not violate the terms of the Apache license. Similar to BSD code in a MIT project, you need to follow the original license in order to be in compliance. David Wheeler arrows indicate that two licenses may be combined, and that the combined work can effectively be treated as having the license at the end of the arrow. If you pull BSD licensed code into MIT, you have to follow the BSD license and include a BSD copyright notice. more: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10903720/new-bsd-license-and-apache-license-compatibility https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10903720/new-bsd-license... http://www.epractice.eu/files/11-04-07_PhL_FLOSS_Licences_Compatibility_Issues_3.pdf http://www.epractice.eu/files/11-04-07_PhL_FLOSS_Licences_Co...