Misplaced Pages

#244755

21-579: The text of Flora License Version 1.0 is similar to Apache License 2.0 without Apache's general patent license, having a patent license only for the "Tizen Certified Platform". Some of the differences include changed text in the Definitions, Grant of Patent License, and Redistribution sections. Paragraph 4 regarding the redistribution is comparable to standard BSD licenses : Webinos wrote in its Open Governance white paper, October 2012 that “there are no formal limitations with regard to obtaining

42-540: A calendar, music player, the task manager, and more. Apache License The Apache License is a permissive free software license written by the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). It allows users to use the software for any purpose, to distribute it, to modify it, and to distribute modified versions of the software under the terms of the license, without concern for royalties . The ASF and its projects release their software products under

63-601: A long and very expensive discovery process. As the court alluded to in Twombly , the costs associated with discovery often underlay the economic calculus which may motivate the settlement of an in terrorem strike suit . The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 created a heightened pleading standard for cases involving violations of securities regulation in the United States in response to perceptions of abuse in this area. This increased particularity

84-575: Is a departure from the "notice pleading" standard enumerated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which would otherwise apply. In some US states, in terrorem clauses are disfavored, but can still be enforceable. In New York , for example, the Estates, Powers and Trust Law codifies the use of, and the limits of, in terrorem clauses in EPT 3-3.5(b). In terrorem has also been referred to by

105-500: The NOTICE text is permissible, provided that these notices cannot be understood as modifying the license. Modifications may have appropriate copyright notices, and may provide different license terms for the modifications. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, any contributions submitted by a licensee to a licensor will be under the terms of the license without any terms and conditions, but this does not preclude any separate agreements with

126-671: The Free Software Foundation agree that the Apache License 2.0 is a free software license , compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3, meaning that code under GPLv3 and Apache License 2.0 can be combined, as long as the resulting software is licensed under the GPLv3. The Free Software Foundation considers all versions of the Apache License to be incompatible with

147-549: The High Court of Australia in the 2012 case of Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd . The unanimous judgement referred to the term when describing the doctrine of penalties and its operation in the case of unfair fees levied by large banks against their customers. Many intellectual property attorneys send in terrorem letters to persons accused of violating their clients' trademark rights, before resorting to court proceedings, which threaten litigation if

168-531: The 1.1 version may have used different wording due to varying requirements for attribution or mark identification, but the binding terms were the same. In January 2004, ASF decided to depart from the BSD model and produced the Apache License 2.0. The stated goals of the license included making it easier for non-ASF projects to use, improving compatibility with GPL -based software, allowing the license to be included by reference instead of listed in every file, clarifying

189-446: The Apache License 2.0 to be an acceptable free license because of its patent provisions. The OpenBSD policy believes that when the license forces one to give up a legal right that one otherwise has, that license is no longer free. Moreover, the project objects to involving contract law with copyright law, stating "...Copyright law is somewhat standardized by international agreements, contract law differs wildly among jurisdictions. So what

210-620: The Apache License. The license is also used by many non-ASF projects. Beginning in 1995, the Apache Group (later the Apache Software Foundation) released successive versions of the Apache HTTP Server . Its initial license was essentially the same as the original 4-clause BSD license , with only the names of the organizations changed, and with an additional clause forbidding derivative works from bearing

231-593: The Apache name. In July 1999, the Berkeley Software Distribution accepted the argument put to it by the Free Software Foundation and retired their advertising clause (clause 3) to form the new 3-clause BSD license. In 2000, Apache did likewise and created the Apache License 1.1, in which derived products are no longer required to include attribution in their advertising materials, only in their documentation. Individual packages licensed under

SECTION 10

#1732787329245

252-483: The license means in different jurisdictions may vary and is hard to predict." In terrorem In terrorem , Latin for "into/about fear", is a legal threat , usually one given in hope of compelling someone to act without resorting to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution . In terrorem clauses (referred to in English as no-contest clauses ) are also used in wills to keep beneficiaries from contesting

273-448: The license on contributions, and requiring a patent license on contributions that necessarily infringe a contributor's own patents. This license requires the preservation of the copyright notice and disclaimer . The Apache License is permissive ; unlike copyleft licenses, it does not require a derivative work of the software, or modifications to the original, to be distributed using the same license. It still requires application of

294-625: The licensor regarding these contributions. The Apache License 2.0 attempts to forestall potential patent litigation in Section 3. The user is granted a patent license from each contributor to "make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work." Through an in terrorem clause, if the user sues anyone alleging that the software or a contribution within it constitutes patent infringement, any such patent licenses for that work are terminated. The Apache Software Foundation and

315-469: The original work, then derivative works must include a readable copy of these notices within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the derivative works, within the source form or documentation, or within a display generated by the derivative works (wherever such third-party notices normally appear). The contents of the NOTICE file do not modify the license, as they are for informational purposes only, and adding more attribution notices as addenda to

336-556: The previous GPL versions 1 and 2. Furthermore, it considers Apache License versions before 2.0 incompatible with GPLv3. Because of version 2.0's patent license requirements, the Free Software Foundation recommends it over other non-copyleft licenses. If the Apache License with the LLVM exception is used, then it is compatible with GPLv2. In October 2012, 8,708 projects located at SourceForge.net were available under

357-405: The same license to all unmodified parts. In every licensed file, original copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices must be preserved (excluding notices that do not pertain to any part of the derivative works). In every licensed file changed, a notification must be added stating that changes have been made to that file. If a NOTICE text file is included as part of the distribution of

378-594: The source code and creating derivatives thereof”. It only grants patents to Tizen Certified Platforms that pass the Tizen Association's compatibility test. Therefore, it is likely not compatible with requirements of the Open Source Initiative . The Flora license was released in May 2012 as part of version 1.0 (Larkspur) of Tizen. It covers some user-facing applications such as boot animation,

399-551: The terms of the Apache License. In a blog post from May 2008, Google mentioned that over 25% of the nearly 100,000 projects then hosted on Google Code were using the Apache License, including the Android operating system . As of 2015 , according to Black Duck Software and GitHub , the Apache license is the third most popular license in the FOSS domain after MIT License and GPLv2 . The OpenBSD project does not consider

420-430: The time of a number of other people, with the right to do so representing an in terrorem increment of the settlement value'" (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores ). In other words, the court worried that the threat of an expensive lawsuit (that was ultimately groundless) would nevertheless encourage settlements, and thus payments by innocent defendants, particularly in the case of antitrust lawsuits, which have

441-430: The will by either completely disinheriting them from any share, or reducing their share to a nominal amount. These clauses are not uniformly recognized. The term was used in the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , which stated: "The requirement of allegations suggesting an agreement serves the practical purpose of preventing a plaintiff with 'a largely groundless claim' from 'tak[ing] up

SECTION 20

#1732787329245
#244755