Please point to the license provision that permits you to completely remove the license and replace it with a different one.
I'll save you time: there isn't one. Nor would that ever make sense in any license, because broadly granting that right in a license would completely defeat the purpose of having any license terms at all.
lol maybe verify your claim before using such a snarky, arrogant tone
"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License."
to be clear, Apache 2.0 requires you to give a copy of the license in a derivative, but does not require you to apply Apache 2.0 to a derivative. the term you are probably looking for is copyleft, which Apache 2.0 definitely does not have
I'm well-versed in the terms of Apache 2.0. You are misinterpreting them. The key clause here is that last one: provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
The entire parts of the code base you didn't modify are still copyrighted by their original authors, and are still subject to the Apache 2.0 license. This is why big tech companies make third-party open source contributors agree to CLAs; without that, they would be unable to relicense the work in the future (among other reasons).
In general, even with a permissive license, you can't just fork a project, make a trivial one-line change, call it a derivative work, and replace the license on the unmodified portions of the code base with an entirely different one. If that was the case, there would be no purpose whatsoever to having any license restrictions at all, because that loop-hole would allow anyone to trivially remove the license restrictions at will.
Please point to the license provision that permits you to completely remove the license and replace it with a different one.
I'll save you time: there isn't one. Nor would that ever make sense in any license, because broadly granting that right in a license would completely defeat the purpose of having any license terms at all.
lol maybe verify your claim before using such a snarky, arrogant tone
"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License."
to be clear, Apache 2.0 requires you to give a copy of the license in a derivative, but does not require you to apply Apache 2.0 to a derivative. the term you are probably looking for is copyleft, which Apache 2.0 definitely does not have
I'm well-versed in the terms of Apache 2.0. You are misinterpreting them. The key clause here is that last one: provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
The entire parts of the code base you didn't modify are still copyrighted by their original authors, and are still subject to the Apache 2.0 license. This is why big tech companies make third-party open source contributors agree to CLAs; without that, they would be unable to relicense the work in the future (among other reasons).
In general, even with a permissive license, you can't just fork a project, make a trivial one-line change, call it a derivative work, and replace the license on the unmodified portions of the code base with an entirely different one. If that was the case, there would be no purpose whatsoever to having any license restrictions at all, because that loop-hole would allow anyone to trivially remove the license restrictions at will.
This is all unrelated to copyleft btw.
2 replies →