Restrict Apache 2.0 to non-commercial use only

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

I recently came across a project stating in the LICENSE file:

This project is released under the Apache License, version 2.0.

This is a commercial solution, requiring a valid paid-for license for commercial use.

This product is free to use for non-commercial applications, like non-profits and educational usage.

Is my understanding of Apache 2.0 correct that such a project does not require a "valid paid-for license" for commercial use and that such a library can be freely used in a commercial project (given that you include the licenses page describing the use of the library with the corresponding Apache 2 license, etc.)?

apache-2.0 commercial non-commercial

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

asked 4 hours ago

David Mulder

1265

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

I recently came across a project stating in the LICENSE file:

This project is released under the Apache License, version 2.0.

This is a commercial solution, requiring a valid paid-for license for commercial use.

This product is free to use for non-commercial applications, like non-profits and educational usage.

Is my understanding of Apache 2.0 correct that such a project does not require a "valid paid-for license" for commercial use and that such a library can be freely used in a commercial project (given that you include the licenses page describing the use of the library with the corresponding Apache 2 license, etc.)?

apache-2.0 commercial non-commercial

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

asked 4 hours ago

David Mulder

1265

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

I recently came across a project stating in the LICENSE file:

This project is released under the Apache License, version 2.0.

This is a commercial solution, requiring a valid paid-for license for commercial use.

This product is free to use for non-commercial applications, like non-profits and educational usage.

Is my understanding of Apache 2.0 correct that such a project does not require a "valid paid-for license" for commercial use and that such a library can be freely used in a commercial project (given that you include the licenses page describing the use of the library with the corresponding Apache 2 license, etc.)?

apache-2.0 commercial non-commercial

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

asked 4 hours ago

David Mulder

1265

I recently came across a project stating in the LICENSE file:

This project is released under the Apache License, version 2.0.

This is a commercial solution, requiring a valid paid-for license for commercial use.

This product is free to use for non-commercial applications, like non-profits and educational usage.

Is my understanding of Apache 2.0 correct that such a project does not require a "valid paid-for license" for commercial use and that such a library can be freely used in a commercial project (given that you include the licenses page describing the use of the library with the corresponding Apache 2 license, etc.)?

apache-2.0 commercial non-commercial

apache-2.0 commercial non-commercial

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

asked 4 hours ago

David Mulder

1265

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

asked 4 hours ago

David Mulder

1265

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

edited 4 hours ago

edited 4 hours ago

asked 4 hours ago

David Mulder

1265

asked 4 hours ago

David Mulder

1265

asked 4 hours ago

David Mulder

1265

1265

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

up vote
3
down vote

As a permissive license, the Apache 2.0 license does not prevent extra restrictions. The code may be used in any project as long as the attribution requirements are met. But such projects would not be licensed under the Apache license! And it would arguably be a misuse of the Apache trademark to call such a project Apache-licensed…

That particular licensing is quite unclear. It is not possible to say whether the author intended to publish an open source project with a public license under the Apache 2 terms, or whether they intended to publish a commercial shared source project that is only free for non-commercial users. There is usually no malice involved in such unclear terms, but frequently a misunderstanding of the open-source license they chose.

To avoid later problems, projects with an unclear license should not be used by other open source projects. Here, personal use might be OK. If you are interested in using the project, you should ask the authors for clarification. In particular:

• whether the royalty-free license in the Apache license or the “paid-for” license in the quoted license take precedence


• whether this applies both to commercial use and to other open source projects (which may also be used commercially)


• whether this applies to both use of the software and to derivative works

Ideally the copyright holders remove this restriction so that the project is licensed under a pure Apache 2 license. The second-best outcome is that they bring clarity by removing the Apache 2 license.

share|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

amon

8,4451124

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  But wouldn't the first line by itself give me the right to fork the project (following the rules of the Apache License 2.0) and distribute it without restrictions?
  – David Mulder
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @DavidMulder The problem is that the Apache license gives you some rights, but the next line takes them away again. This raises the question which of these conflicting terms has precedence. I don't know enough about contract law to discuss that. My suggestion is to ask the author to resolve that conflict and provide unambiguous licensing terms.
  – amon
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @David Imagine a very simple license: "You may modify and distribute this software for any purpose. You may not modify or distribute it for commercial purposes." This license is inherently contradictory -- it both allows and disallows commercial purposes. How the law will resolve such a contradiction is not clear and probably varies by jurisdiction. See also How can a "crayon" license be a problem?
  – apsillers♦
  1 hour ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "619"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7400%2frestrict-apache-2-0-to-non-commercial-use-only%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
3
down vote

As a permissive license, the Apache 2.0 license does not prevent extra restrictions. The code may be used in any project as long as the attribution requirements are met. But such projects would not be licensed under the Apache license! And it would arguably be a misuse of the Apache trademark to call such a project Apache-licensed…

That particular licensing is quite unclear. It is not possible to say whether the author intended to publish an open source project with a public license under the Apache 2 terms, or whether they intended to publish a commercial shared source project that is only free for non-commercial users. There is usually no malice involved in such unclear terms, but frequently a misunderstanding of the open-source license they chose.

To avoid later problems, projects with an unclear license should not be used by other open source projects. Here, personal use might be OK. If you are interested in using the project, you should ask the authors for clarification. In particular:

• whether the royalty-free license in the Apache license or the “paid-for” license in the quoted license take precedence


• whether this applies both to commercial use and to other open source projects (which may also be used commercially)


• whether this applies to both use of the software and to derivative works

Ideally the copyright holders remove this restriction so that the project is licensed under a pure Apache 2 license. The second-best outcome is that they bring clarity by removing the Apache 2 license.

share|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

amon

8,4451124

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  But wouldn't the first line by itself give me the right to fork the project (following the rules of the Apache License 2.0) and distribute it without restrictions?
  – David Mulder
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @DavidMulder The problem is that the Apache license gives you some rights, but the next line takes them away again. This raises the question which of these conflicting terms has precedence. I don't know enough about contract law to discuss that. My suggestion is to ask the author to resolve that conflict and provide unambiguous licensing terms.
  – amon
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @David Imagine a very simple license: "You may modify and distribute this software for any purpose. You may not modify or distribute it for commercial purposes." This license is inherently contradictory -- it both allows and disallows commercial purposes. How the law will resolve such a contradiction is not clear and probably varies by jurisdiction. See also How can a "crayon" license be a problem?
  – apsillers♦
  1 hour ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

As a permissive license, the Apache 2.0 license does not prevent extra restrictions. The code may be used in any project as long as the attribution requirements are met. But such projects would not be licensed under the Apache license! And it would arguably be a misuse of the Apache trademark to call such a project Apache-licensed…

That particular licensing is quite unclear. It is not possible to say whether the author intended to publish an open source project with a public license under the Apache 2 terms, or whether they intended to publish a commercial shared source project that is only free for non-commercial users. There is usually no malice involved in such unclear terms, but frequently a misunderstanding of the open-source license they chose.

To avoid later problems, projects with an unclear license should not be used by other open source projects. Here, personal use might be OK. If you are interested in using the project, you should ask the authors for clarification. In particular:

• whether the royalty-free license in the Apache license or the “paid-for” license in the quoted license take precedence


• whether this applies both to commercial use and to other open source projects (which may also be used commercially)


• whether this applies to both use of the software and to derivative works

Ideally the copyright holders remove this restriction so that the project is licensed under a pure Apache 2 license. The second-best outcome is that they bring clarity by removing the Apache 2 license.

share|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

amon

8,4451124

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  But wouldn't the first line by itself give me the right to fork the project (following the rules of the Apache License 2.0) and distribute it without restrictions?
  – David Mulder
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @DavidMulder The problem is that the Apache license gives you some rights, but the next line takes them away again. This raises the question which of these conflicting terms has precedence. I don't know enough about contract law to discuss that. My suggestion is to ask the author to resolve that conflict and provide unambiguous licensing terms.
  – amon
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @David Imagine a very simple license: "You may modify and distribute this software for any purpose. You may not modify or distribute it for commercial purposes." This license is inherently contradictory -- it both allows and disallows commercial purposes. How the law will resolve such a contradiction is not clear and probably varies by jurisdiction. See also How can a "crayon" license be a problem?
  – apsillers♦
  1 hour ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

up vote
3
down vote

As a permissive license, the Apache 2.0 license does not prevent extra restrictions. The code may be used in any project as long as the attribution requirements are met. But such projects would not be licensed under the Apache license! And it would arguably be a misuse of the Apache trademark to call such a project Apache-licensed…

That particular licensing is quite unclear. It is not possible to say whether the author intended to publish an open source project with a public license under the Apache 2 terms, or whether they intended to publish a commercial shared source project that is only free for non-commercial users. There is usually no malice involved in such unclear terms, but frequently a misunderstanding of the open-source license they chose.

To avoid later problems, projects with an unclear license should not be used by other open source projects. Here, personal use might be OK. If you are interested in using the project, you should ask the authors for clarification. In particular:

• whether the royalty-free license in the Apache license or the “paid-for” license in the quoted license take precedence


• whether this applies both to commercial use and to other open source projects (which may also be used commercially)


• whether this applies to both use of the software and to derivative works

Ideally the copyright holders remove this restriction so that the project is licensed under a pure Apache 2 license. The second-best outcome is that they bring clarity by removing the Apache 2 license.

share|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

amon

8,4451124

As a permissive license, the Apache 2.0 license does not prevent extra restrictions. The code may be used in any project as long as the attribution requirements are met. But such projects would not be licensed under the Apache license! And it would arguably be a misuse of the Apache trademark to call such a project Apache-licensed…

That particular licensing is quite unclear. It is not possible to say whether the author intended to publish an open source project with a public license under the Apache 2 terms, or whether they intended to publish a commercial shared source project that is only free for non-commercial users. There is usually no malice involved in such unclear terms, but frequently a misunderstanding of the open-source license they chose.

To avoid later problems, projects with an unclear license should not be used by other open source projects. Here, personal use might be OK. If you are interested in using the project, you should ask the authors for clarification. In particular:

• whether the royalty-free license in the Apache license or the “paid-for” license in the quoted license take precedence


• whether this applies both to commercial use and to other open source projects (which may also be used commercially)


• whether this applies to both use of the software and to derivative works

Ideally the copyright holders remove this restriction so that the project is licensed under a pure Apache 2 license. The second-best outcome is that they bring clarity by removing the Apache 2 license.

share|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

amon

8,4451124

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

amon

8,4451124

answered 3 hours ago

amon

8,4451124

answered 3 hours ago

amon

8,4451124

8,4451124

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  But wouldn't the first line by itself give me the right to fork the project (following the rules of the Apache License 2.0) and distribute it without restrictions?
  – David Mulder
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @DavidMulder The problem is that the Apache license gives you some rights, but the next line takes them away again. This raises the question which of these conflicting terms has precedence. I don't know enough about contract law to discuss that. My suggestion is to ask the author to resolve that conflict and provide unambiguous licensing terms.
  – amon
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @David Imagine a very simple license: "You may modify and distribute this software for any purpose. You may not modify or distribute it for commercial purposes." This license is inherently contradictory -- it both allows and disallows commercial purposes. How the law will resolve such a contradiction is not clear and probably varies by jurisdiction. See also How can a "crayon" license be a problem?
  – apsillers♦
  1 hour ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  But wouldn't the first line by itself give me the right to fork the project (following the rules of the Apache License 2.0) and distribute it without restrictions?
  – David Mulder
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @DavidMulder The problem is that the Apache license gives you some rights, but the next line takes them away again. This raises the question which of these conflicting terms has precedence. I don't know enough about contract law to discuss that. My suggestion is to ask the author to resolve that conflict and provide unambiguous licensing terms.
  – amon
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @David Imagine a very simple license: "You may modify and distribute this software for any purpose. You may not modify or distribute it for commercial purposes." This license is inherently contradictory -- it both allows and disallows commercial purposes. How the law will resolve such a contradiction is not clear and probably varies by jurisdiction. See also How can a "crayon" license be a problem?
  – apsillers♦
  1 hour ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

But wouldn't the first line by itself give me the right to fork the project (following the rules of the Apache License 2.0) and distribute it without restrictions?
– David Mulder
2 hours ago

But wouldn't the first line by itself give me the right to fork the project (following the rules of the Apache License 2.0) and distribute it without restrictions?
– David Mulder
2 hours ago

@DavidMulder The problem is that the Apache license gives you some rights, but the next line takes them away again. This raises the question which of these conflicting terms has precedence. I don't know enough about contract law to discuss that. My suggestion is to ask the author to resolve that conflict and provide unambiguous licensing terms.
– amon
2 hours ago

@DavidMulder The problem is that the Apache license gives you some rights, but the next line takes them away again. This raises the question which of these conflicting terms has precedence. I don't know enough about contract law to discuss that. My suggestion is to ask the author to resolve that conflict and provide unambiguous licensing terms.
– amon
2 hours ago

1

1

@David Imagine a very simple license: "You may modify and distribute this software for any purpose. You may not modify or distribute it for commercial purposes." This license is inherently contradictory -- it both allows and disallows commercial purposes. How the law will resolve such a contradiction is not clear and probably varies by jurisdiction. See also How can a "crayon" license be a problem?
– apsillers♦
1 hour ago

@David Imagine a very simple license: "You may modify and distribute this software for any purpose. You may not modify or distribute it for commercial purposes." This license is inherently contradictory -- it both allows and disallows commercial purposes. How the law will resolve such a contradiction is not clear and probably varies by jurisdiction. See also How can a "crayon" license be a problem?
– apsillers♦
1 hour ago

add a comment | 

 

draft saved

draft discarded

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7400%2frestrict-apache-2-0-to-non-commercial-use-only%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Name Email

Name

Email

Name Email

Name

Email