I have a slight case of OCD. That means I've read multiple questions that are similar but I'm still paranoid.

I'm distributing a commercial application that relies on a 3rd party library that's licensed under Apache 2.0. In order to prevent DLL HELL, I've simply re-assembled the library under a different assembly name, and namespace on all the files. Because of this, I performed a quick find/replace on the 200+ code files to swap out the namespace.

So we have this:

You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and

I'm not including the source with the distribution. Do I really have to go through every single code file and put a notice at the top that says the namespace was changed? Or can I do that from the installation license, which I am referencing the Apache 2.0 license for the included library.

I anticipate some IANAL responses, and that's okay. Just wanted to get some thoughts.

  • For such a minor change to many files, I would write it in the NOTICE.txt file (or add such a file). – GlenPeterson May 30 '16 at 21:23

If you are not including the source and you aren't releasing the source files (since you aren't required to release the original or modified source files for Apache License 2.0 projects), then I don't see why you it would matter if you put a notice that you edited the files in the header, since no one other than you would see them.

Instead, just make sure that the LICENSE and NOTICE are correct. If, in the future, you make your modified source files available to anyone else, you're going to want to update the headers to reflect that you modified the files.

  • In my case there isn't a notice file, and what I did was included the Apache 2.0 license text within the distribution. And in my EULA, at the top it explains the 3rd party library and where to find the license text. Think that'll do? Thank you for sharing :) – user1447679 May 30 '16 at 20:21
  • @user1447679 If your EULA is pointing at the original download for the project, I suspect that's sufficient. Updating the namespace likely isn't copyrightable, and you are pointing people at the original project with a permissive license. I'm not seeing anything wrong with this per the Apache License, but I could be missing some small nuance somewhere. – Thomas Owens May 30 '16 at 20:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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