-1

If some code is published in two different places by different people, one under the Apache license and one under no license, and I have no way to know which one is the original author (one of them could have copied the other, or both copied some other original source) - if I then copy the code from the person who published it under no license, and it later turns out that the one under Apache license was the original, and I didn't follow the terms of the Apache license - am I liable?

Adam Burley
  • 111
  • 4
  • In your scenario, I'd imagine that most likely the version "published with no license" was in fact taken from the Apache version but is missing the license information for some reason. In other words, the version with "no license" might technically be violating the Apache license terms by not reproducing the Apache license as required. – Brandin Jan 15 '23 at 05:50
  • And if it were in the other direction (that the "Apache licensed" version was actually derived from the version published with no license), then that may be a violation too, unless the authors have made a private agreement to allow the copying into the Apache-licensed project. – Brandin Jan 15 '23 at 05:53
  • See also: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5143/how-to-mark-a-copied-apache-v2-piece-of-code – Brandin Jan 15 '23 at 05:56
  • Treat the two publications completely separately. If one has no license then you have no right to do anything with it, so delete it from your mind, forget you ever saw it. – curiousdannii Jan 15 '23 at 08:04

1 Answers1

4

I didn't follow the terms of the Apache license - am I liable?

Quite probably, particularly if it could be shown that you were aware there was uncertainty about the licensing and did nothing to resolve that uncertainty.

I then copy the code from the person who published it under no license

Note that this is definitely a copyright violation; you have basically no right to do anything with code published without a license.

Philip Kendall
  • 19,156
  • 1
  • 57
  • 82
  • Aren't the answers to the linked question specific to GitHub? In this case the code published under no license was not on GitHub, just code snippets on someone's blog on Medium. The wording of the blog post implies that you can re-use it (as it's written as a tutorial) although there is no explicit license – Adam Burley Jan 12 '23 at 12:11
  • 4
    No, the answers to the question are generic, GitHub is just an example. And I would disagree with your assertion that you can re-use a tutorial; if you want actual legal advice on that, talk to your lawyer. – Philip Kendall Jan 12 '23 at 12:14