{"id":"Apache-2.0","title":"Apache License, Version 2.0","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/spdx/license-list-data/main/text/Apache-2.0.txt","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"corrected","summary":"The record models the 2.0 license as a permissive license with attribution, notice and modification-notice duties, a trademark prohibition and a permission to add different terms to your own modifications. That is right as far as the vocabulary reaches. The express right to sublicense was missing, and the duty to pass on a copy of the license was recorded for distribution only. The three clauses that make this license distinctive, the patent grant, the patent retaliation and the NOTICE file, cannot be expressed at all.","findings":[{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Section 2 grants a \"perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work\". Sublicensing was not modelled. Added odrl:grantUse.","action":"applied","change":"odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;\n        odrl:action odrl:grantUse ] ;\n"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"Section 4(a) reads: \"You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License\". The cc:Notice duty was attached to odrl:distribute only, so a modified or derived work looked as if it could be passed on without the license. Added cc:Notice to odrl:modify and odrl:derive.","action":"applied","change":"odrl:duty [ a odrl:Duty ;\n        odrl:action cc:Notice ] ;\n"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"vocabulary","description":"Section 3 grants an express patent license: \"each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work\". No existing action or policy quality covers it: dalicc:patentFree says the opposite and dalicc:patentNotice is a notice duty, not a grant. Proposed term: dalicc:patentGrant, an odrl:Action usable as a permission.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"vocabulary","description":"The same section 3 ends: \"If You institute patent litigation against any entity ... alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.\" This is the clause that decides compatibility with several other licenses and it has no term. Proposed term: dalicc:patentRetaliationTermination.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"vocabulary","description":"Section 4(d) requires that \"any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file\". This is narrower than cc:Attribution and narrower than cc:Notice: it is a duty to carry a specific file forward. Bending cc:Notice to cover it would lose the distinction. Proposed term: dalicc:includeNoticeFile.","action":"none"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:duty","description":"Section 4(c) requires retaining \"all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices\". The vocabulary defines dalicc:patentNotice and dalicc:trademarkNotice for exactly this but no record in the library uses them, so adding them here alone would break family consistency. Left open for the association's decision as one decision for the library.","action":"proposed","change":"# add to the odrl:distribute, odrl:modify and odrl:derive duties\nodrl:duty [ a odrl:Duty ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:patentNotice ],\n    [ a odrl:Duty ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:trademarkNotice ] ;\n"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"dalicc:promote is prohibited and section 6 supports it: \"This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor\".","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:permission","description":"dalicc:ChangeLicense with a dalicc:compliantLicense duty is supported by the last paragraph of section 4: \"You may ... provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications ... provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.\"","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"major","field":"record","description":"Standard-license addition of 2026-09-15, decision 9: the record was corrected against its new siblings and versioned. The review's finding on family consistency: the record made no patent statement although section 3 grants a patent license 'to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work' and ends it 'If You institute patent litigation against any entity ... alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement'.","action":"applied"}],"family":"Apache Software Foundation (1.1, 2.0)","port_of":null,"variant_kind":"version","notes":"The three vocabulary gaps recorded here are the highest-value additions for the whole library, not only for this record: patent grant, patent retaliation and notice-file duty recur across Apache, Eclipse, Mozilla, Common Development and Distribution, Microsoft Public and the Open Software License."}