[Insight-developers] ITKv4 : LICENSE Changed to Apache 2.0

[Brad King]

Hi Tom,

I can answer the first 2 according to my understanding, but I'm not
a lawyer.

On 10/07/2010 02:40 PM, Tom Vercauteren wrote:
> 1) Does the redistribution clause 4.2 requires that if someone
> distributes some binary software that uses a patched ITK, this someone
> has to mention the names of all patched files? This is what I
> understand from
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#redistribution

I assume you refer to this text:

  "You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
   stating that You changed the files"

That applies mostly to the source files themselves.  You are not
directly modifying any files from the binary distribution.  In each
source file:

- If you are also using the Apache license in the derivative work then
  just adding your own copyright line to the top should be sufficient.
- If you are using another license then you need to add a whole new
  notice block to the top accordingly.

You cannot misrepresent the modified form as the original version.

> 2) Regarding the code that lies in Code/Patented. Did any of the
> inventors actually contributed to it? If so, I guess that we need to
> get rid of it before making the license change effective.
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#patent
> Am I understanding it correctly?

No.  The key text is:

  "applies only to those patent claims licensable by"

If the contributors were not the inventors then nothing is granted.

-Brad