So then what is the meaning of the caveat (in the license itself) that "For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof"?
What's an example of something that would fall under that caveat? And why would not (for example) an email client that happens to store its configuration using XML not fall under it? What is that email client doing if *not* merely linking to or binding by name to the interfaces of the Work? Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Glavassevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 2:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Licensing question Hi all, If you *redistribute* Xerces (or any other Apache software) I'm pretty sure you must include a copy of the license. That also applies to derivative works. There's an FAQ [1] on the main Apache site which explains the terms of the license. It should answer most of your questions. [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN Michael Glavassevich XML Parser Development IBM Toronto Lab E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Robert William Vesterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/18/2005 02:22:51 PM: > Please correct me if I am wrong: > > You're saying that you only have to include the license (and so forth) if > you're using Xerces to build something whose purpose is similar to that of > Xerces? For example, if you're building an XML parser? > > And on the other hand, if you're just using Xerces to save and retrieve data > for your application which otherwise has nothing to do with XML, you don't > have to include the license? For example, if you're building an email client > that happens to store its configuration using XML? > > If that's not what you're saying, could you please elaborate? > > If it is what you're saying, does anyone agree or disagree? > > And just to be explicit: This is, or is not, the case regardless of the > commercial/non-commercial/open/closed/et cetera status of the thing you're > building? > > Thanks. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alberto Massari [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 12:41 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Licensing question > > > Hi Rafael, > I am no lawyer, so don't take this as an authorative answer, nor as > the official word from Apache; but I would say that if you just > compile against Xerces, you have no obligations (apart not claiming > that you wrote also the Xerces library). > The LICENSE file has to be distributed only if you create a > "Derivative work" (e.g. an XML parser that starts from Xerces and > adds new features; otherwise "for the purposes of this License, > Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, > or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and > Derivative Works thereof.") > > Hope this helps, > Alberto > > At 22.25 17/11/2005 +0000, Rafael Sousa (Ext_Altior) wrote: > >Hi all! > > > >I'm using Xerces-C++ on my project. I have the libxerces-c.so.27.0 file > >under some directory in a commercial system, and my software uses it. No > >changes were made to Apaches' source code. > > > >My question is: What does the Apache License Version 2.0 obliges? Is it > >just to distribute the LICENCE file along with the .so file? Does it > >suffice to have it in the same directory as the .so file? > > > >Thanks in advance, > > > >Rafael Sousa > > >
