Hi team,
I noticed that the project currently states it is licensed under Apache License 2.0 with additional conditions. However, the added conditions (e.g. requiring a commercial license for derivative works) are restrictions not present in the standard Apache 2.0 license.
The official Apache License 2.0 states under Section 4:
“You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof, in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions…”
There is no clause that requires obtaining a commercial license for derivative works. Adding such a restriction means the license is not Apache 2.0 anymore.
The Apache Software Foundation is very clear about this in their licensing FAQ:
“If you modify it, you are on your own from a legal point of view, and the result is NOT the Apache License, just a new license inspired by ours. This means that the terms ‘Apache License’, ‘Apache’, and any similar references or parts that specifically refer to the ASF cannot appear in your version. Also, you cannot use ‘Apache’ in the name of the modified license. Names like ‘Apache License with such-and-such clause’, for example, are not acceptable, as they cause confusion.”
Suggested action:
- Rename the license to something like “LobeHub License” or “LobeChat Community License” to make clear it is a custom license, not Apache 2.0.
- Optionally, clarify in the README that this is a source-available license with commercial restrictions, not a standard open-source license.
This change would reduce confusion for contributors and users, and align the project with best practices around license naming.
Thanks for considering.
Hi team,
I noticed that the project currently states it is licensed under Apache License 2.0 with additional conditions. However, the added conditions (e.g. requiring a commercial license for derivative works) are restrictions not present in the standard Apache 2.0 license.
The official Apache License 2.0 states under Section 4:
There is no clause that requires obtaining a commercial license for derivative works. Adding such a restriction means the license is not Apache 2.0 anymore.
The Apache Software Foundation is very clear about this in their licensing FAQ:
Suggested action:
This change would reduce confusion for contributors and users, and align the project with best practices around license naming.
Thanks for considering.