Using the Apache License 2.0 By Reference Only

Question

I want to license my software with the Apache License 2.0. The software is only a single file of source code. I do not want to include the entire license verbatim in the code. The license appendix describes how I may apply the license to my work by reference. This is done by including text in my software, referring to the license, which I am willing to do.

Recipients of my software then clearly will be subject to the terms of the license, one of which is a redistribution restriction (section 4(a)). That restriction requires that recipients who want to redistribute the work "must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License".

Does this mean that recipients who want to redistribute the work must include 2 files, instead of merely 1 - the single file of source code, and a copy of the license?

• Thomas Owens: I asked a related question on the Open Source Stack Exchange. The answers there may also be of interest, along with some other questions there.

Answer 1

Yes, that is what it means.

However, it is recommended that you already include that second file with a copy of the license, just to avoid that a (potential) user of your software needs to go to a different site (which might be down or unreachable from their location) to read what their rights and obligations are.

• robinbb: Okay, thanks for your interpretation. It matches mine. Unfortunately, it means that Apache License 2.0 is not appropriate for single-file software!

Answer 2

On the very page of the Apache 2.0 license, it is explained how to include a boilerplate notice into the comment section of your work. This notice is sufficient to inform any users of their rights and obligations in regards to your work.

• robinbb: Yes, my obligations are satisfied by simply including the boilerplate notice that you mention. However, those who use the work, according to the license, have the additional responsibility (4(a)) - they "must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License". I am looking for reasons why this is perhaps not so.