Skip to content

Incorrect use of the Apache 2.0 License #6635

Closed
@kirelagin

Description

@kirelagin

In #5470 a change was made in the right direction to put the raw text of the Apache 2.0 license into the LICENSE file.

However, currently, the LICENSE file includes not only the license text, as it is supposed to, but also an additional copyright statement, which is not part of the license text. The official .txt version of the license text is a little misleading in this regard, please, see the official HTML page or the FAQ entry for more clear instructions.

Namely, as the HTML page explains, you should put the raw unmodified text of the license into the LICENSE file in your repo, and then add the example boilerplate to the files that you are licensing, i.e. your source code (hence the “The text should be enclosed in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format” note).

Ideally, you should add the boilerplate to all files in the repository, however if this is impossible for some reason, it is generally acceptable to put this text in the README, where everyone will see it. The end of a rather long LICENSE file is probably not a place where people will be looking for it :).

To make matters slightly worse, by putting this boilerplate into the LICENSE file you seem to claim that this file itself is copyrighted by SmartBear Software Inc., which it clearly is not, since the copyright for the license text is owned by its authors, i.e. the Apache Software Foundation.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions