Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by stgraber 917 days ago
They changed COPYING from Apache2 to APGLv3 without introducing any SPDX headers or similar to denote what is Apache2 and what isn't. So yes, while AGPLv3 is compatible with Apache2, it doesn't grant anyone the right to relicense code.

Anyone is allowed to take my Apache2 code and do what they wish with it so long as it remains Apache2, you can't just go and replace the license text from one license to another and call it good, that code is still Apache2.
2 comments
kragen 917 days ago
i think the apache2 license actually permits modifications of the code to be licensed under a different license, including microsoft's eula or the agpl, and doesn't require the original licensing to be preserved for the individual source files (like the mpl) or for the modifications to be kept separate, as a patch (like perl's artistic license), and this was an intentional choice on the part of the apache2 drafters

however, it seems to me that the copyright and license headers (if any) on the individual pieces of code you wrote must be preserved, as well as (as you say) the overall copyright notice:

> You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works

from https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

link
pessimizer 917 days ago
Is there some part of the Apache 2 license that insists that people using Apache 2 licensed code in a project clearly mark what code is Apache 2 and what code is under some other license? Of course not.

Nobody is relicensing the code on other people's computers. If you downloaded code under Apache 2, somebody other than you incorporating that same code into their AGPL project won't relicense the code on your computer, but it certainly will relicense the code on theirs.

link
kragen 917 days ago
> Is there some part of the Apache 2 license that insists that people using Apache 2 licensed code in a project clearly mark what code is Apache 2 and what code is under some other license? Of course not.

yes, there is

i quoted the relevant part of the apache 2 license in my sibling comment above

link
pessimizer 917 days ago
> You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works

Leaving the notice files in is in no way "marking which code is Apache 2 and which code is under some other license."

edit: this entire discussion evaporates if we abandon the idea that somebody would (or could) go through an AGPLv3 project that incorporated Apache 2 licensed code, and pull out just the Apache 2 code to use in another project. The only way to do that would be to download the Apache 2 licensed code from its original source and diff it against the AGPL project in order to distinguish the code you can use from the code you can't.

It doesn't make any sense. There's no sane preference for copy-pasting from the AGPL project rather than the original code that you've obtained under Apache.

link
kragen 917 days ago
i guess you could comply by leaving the apache 2 license in there but then not say which files it applies to, but then you'd be licensing the whole work under the apache 2 license

i don't think you can comply by just removing the apache 2 license

you're right about 'jeez' and i've removed it

link
pessimizer 917 days ago
LGPLv3 is more restrictive than Apache 2. The point as that every source file will be under LGPLv3, because it will be Apache 2 code mixed with LGPLv3 code.

The Apache 2 code will remain Apache 2 code, but in a pointless way.

link
kragen 917 days ago
agreed, once further modifications accrete
link