Questions in bold:

I've read the Apache Software License 2.0... What I gather is that all a person needs to do when redistributing the licensed software is include their name in all the parts they've modified(if any), include some notices and whatnot, and you're away. You don't even need to follow along with the license in all your additions/edits, because you can sub-license.

The thing I don't really get is, why would anyone want to use this kind of license, honestly? Am I missing something?

One more thing, does #include-ing(or similar) a licensed library mean that you are making a derivative of the licensed source, therefore binding you to the terms and conditions of the license?

  • recommended reading: Gorilla vs. Shark -- "if you... don’t want your question to get instantly closed... — try to keep Gorilla vs. Shark in mind." – gnat Aug 2 '14 at 14:53
  • 1
    They want that people are able to build products based on their software. Without them having to worry much about what exactly is legal for them. You won't get very far selling copies of Apache without serious modifications that are worth the price you ask. Sure you can try to find some fool, but fools rarely install web servers. – thorsten müller Aug 2 '14 at 18:02
  • If you make a slight modification and sell apache, who do you think is going to buy it? Unless your modification cures cancer (metaphorically speaking), nobody will pay for it when they can get the "real" apache for free. – Bryan Oakley Aug 3 '14 at 11:17
  • Ahh I see. Yeah you're right, no one would buy a clone when can just get it for free. For libraries and the more low level stuff, it totally makes sense to me now. On top of all that, I recently found out people do actually modify and sell Android OS. Few and far between though by the looks of it. Again, people will probably just go for CyanogenMod over the costly ones because it's free. By the way, I searched Google for ages trying to find it spelled out, because I was still a little unsure, so thought I'd just post a question guaranteed to get it spelled out for the sake of others haha. – thelittlegumnut Aug 5 '14 at 0:50
  • Please try to keep one question per question. The one mor thing part - search first. – user40980 Aug 5 '14 at 4:08

You say:

If I made free software, I'd want to know that it will stay free, and that no one will just copy and sell. Or slightly modify and sell. Am I missing something?

Yes. When I make free software, I want to know that people will find what I do useful. I don't care whether they make money out of it or not -- I know I'm not in a position to make that money anyway, so why does it matter to me? I just want to make the world a better place, and as far as I'm concerned that means the more people use the software I write the better. I prefer BSD-style licenses (which includes the Apache license) because they open up the largest possible audience.

  • 1
    Agree absolutely. I make software to sell and software to give away and what matters most is that someone uses it and finds it useful. And if most everyone does that, we all benefit (even if some people don't). – david.pfx Aug 3 '14 at 7:12
  • You're just too nice, that's all! Nah I'm kidding, makes sense. :) – thelittlegumnut Aug 5 '14 at 0:56

Re the second part of the question, including a library means merging and merging always creates a derived work. You can only merge code if you comply with the licence and you can only distribute the merged product if you comply with the distribution part of the licence.

  • So that's why they call the GPL infectious... Thanks! – thelittlegumnut Aug 5 '14 at 1:16

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.