Not a lawyer. My personal interpretation of the licence is that it's best to modify the code first, then - keeping the licence declaration at the top of the page - put below it clearly that you changed the file. For some reason they explicitly mention "modified versions" having the ability to have other licences in the sentence below.
"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." http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 "The Apache License does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license nor even that it be distributed as free/open-source software." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License - Juan T. On Sep 7, 4:42 pm, wescorp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > At this point I've an application where I've created all the source > code and presume to own the application outright. For now, I plan to > keep the source code proprietary. I'm considering extending the > application using thehttp://code.google.com/p/apps-for-android/ > Photostream example. > > How would this effect my proprietary source code rights? > > What restrictions, if any, would placed on my applications by > including source from the example? > > Am I better off to study the example and create my own? > > Any help appreciated. > > Cheers, > Wes --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
