[x] I agree to follow the Code of Conduct that this project adheres to.
[x] I have searched the issue tracker for a feature request that matches the one I want to file, without success.
You must agree to search and the code of conduct. You must fill in this entire template. If you delete part/all or miss parts out your issue will be closed.
If you are technical, you should reporting bugs along the lines of https://marker.io/blog/how-to-write-bug-report. If you are not technical, we will make allowances, please try to make an effort to understand the process.
Describe the bug
The modification to the Apache 2.0 license is not purely cosmetic, so the modified license must not use "Apache" in the license name.
Apache Software Foundation FAQ: May I re-use (and modify) the Apache License 2.0 itself?
> # May I re-use (and modify) the Apache License 2.0 itself?
>
> You may re-use our license unchanged, and also modify it.
>
> 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 to the ASF cannot appear in your modified license, other than to state that it differs from the original.
>
> 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.
>
> Creating a new license is a non-trivial task. If you do that we recommend that you get your own legal advice.
>
> Some modifications are trivial or purely cosmetic in nature and do not alter the license in any meaningful way. In such cases, the result would still be considered the Apache License, and you do not need to change the name in these cases. Using "https:" for the URL in the license header instead of "http:", or changing the font or line spacing to make the license more readable, are examples of such changes. If you are uncertain whether your changes are trivial, you should seek your own legal advice.
Section 10 is a non-cosmetic modification to the Apache 2.0 license.
Expected behavior
As per the Apache Software Foundation's FAQ (link), "[...] 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."
Screenshots
N/A
draw.io version (In the Help->About menu of the draw.io editor):
draw.io version 24.7.8 (dev branch on github)
Desktop (please complete the following information):
OS: N/A
Browser N/A
Browser Version N/A
Smartphone (please complete the following information):
Device: N/A
OS: N/A
Browser N/A
Version N/A
I tested the problem in incognito/private mode with all browser extensions switched off, write "yes" below:
yes
Additional contextI am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but per my understanding, changing the LICENSE file to replace "JGraph Adapted Apache License" with "JGraph License" (in the header and appendix), changing "Based on Version 2.0" in the header to "Based on the Apache License Version 2.0" or similar, and changing the URL in the header to point to the license file on github (like the URL in the appendix) would appear to correct the issue. Perhaps adding an appendix with a link to the original Apache 2.0 license and disclaimer about the modification would be good too.
Preflight Checklist
You must agree to search and the code of conduct. You must fill in this entire template. If you delete part/all or miss parts out your issue will be closed.
If you are technical, you should reporting bugs along the lines of https://marker.io/blog/how-to-write-bug-report. If you are not technical, we will make allowances, please try to make an effort to understand the process.
Describe the bug The modification to the Apache 2.0 license is not purely cosmetic, so the modified license must not use "Apache" in the license name.
Apache Software Foundation FAQ: May I re-use (and modify) the Apache License 2.0 itself?
> # May I re-use (and modify) the Apache License 2.0 itself? > > You may re-use our license unchanged, and also modify it. > > 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 to the ASF cannot appear in your modified license, other than to state that it differs from the original. > > 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. > > Creating a new license is a non-trivial task. If you do that we recommend that you get your own legal advice. > > Some modifications are trivial or purely cosmetic in nature and do not alter the license in any meaningful way. In such cases, the result would still be considered the Apache License, and you do not need to change the name in these cases. Using "https:" for the URL in the license header instead of "http:", or changing the font or line spacing to make the license more readable, are examples of such changes. If you are uncertain whether your changes are trivial, you should seek your own legal advice.To Reproduce Steps to reproduce the behavior:
LICENSEExpected behavior As per the Apache Software Foundation's FAQ (link), "[...] 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."
Screenshots N/A
draw.io version (In the Help->About menu of the draw.io editor):
Desktop (please complete the following information):
Smartphone (please complete the following information):
I tested the problem in incognito/private mode with all browser extensions switched off, write "yes" below:
Additional context I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but per my understanding, changing the
LICENSEfile to replace "JGraph Adapted Apache License" with "JGraph License" (in the header and appendix), changing "Based on Version 2.0" in the header to "Based on the Apache License Version 2.0" or similar, and changing the URL in the header to point to the license file on github (like the URL in the appendix) would appear to correct the issue. Perhaps adding an appendix with a link to the original Apache 2.0 license and disclaimer about the modification would be good too.