Alex did some research into the topic. Full text below.
- we have no NOTICE file in Autobahn (thus, nothing to distribute here)
- I have shortened the license header in the Autobahn JS lib:
- we are fine as long as you leave that header intact in the JS file
- the header contains a link to the Apache license, and for us
this is enough to fulfill the requirement (should there be one)
of "distribution of license"
- no need to provide a separate download, link or a rendering of
the license in the UI of your browser app
- disclaimer (I need to do that): above is not a legally binding
interpretation of the Apache license
I hope above is sufficient for you,
Quoted from Alex's research:
We cannot give a binding interpretation of the Apache license.
With that caveat in mind, here is what we think is the case regarding
Regarding the redistribution, the Apache foundation stated:
"The notification terms of the Apache License are meant to apply to
distribution of the code to another party. If someone were distributing
the source code for an entire website code to a third party, who might
then install the same website somewhere else, then redistribution terms
would certainly apply."
during the use of the website is not counted as redistribution.
Without an express statement to that effect, I would not count on it,
So it is best to fulfill the obligations from article 4 of the license
that come with redistribution.
4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 really aren't problematic in the context of using
A notice of changes to the file needs to be prominent, but not verbose:
any short notice at the head of the file suffices. (4.2)
and do not present any significant overhead. (4.3)
There is no separate notice file, so anything in 4.4 is moot.
So what it comes down to in the end is just 4.1.: the copy of the Apache
While on the face of it this seems to be unambigous, I really think we
need to take into consideration both the intention of provision 4.1 and
the facts of modern life:
delivered as part of a webpage, we can safely assume the presence of an
internet connection, so access to a copy of the Apache license is not a
problem if there is a link to it.
The Apache foundation itself, in its sample notice
(http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html, bottom of the page),
only gives a link, and does not make any mention of something to the
tune of "a copy of this license is provided with this work". This notice
is intended for any kind of work, not just for internet-connected ones.
This fits well with current practices on the web (as e.g. summarized in
this article on the entire issue:
people just provide a link, not the license itself.
to the license should be enough. There really isn't any need to
distribute the license in full with the file.
Alexander G dde
Intellectual Property Professional
+49(0)9131 940 3575
+49(0)176 81 032 874
blog: Free Your Data
Am 07.03.2012 14:40, schrieb