Is such combining with apache 2.0 license correct?

[MBkkt]

https://github.com/jothepro/doxygen-awesome-css/blob/main/LICENSE

https://github.com/jothepro/doxygen-awesome-css/blob/main/doxygen-awesome-darkmode-toggle.js#L31

[jothepro]

That is an interesting question. My understanding of the Apache license is that one can use the work in a project under a different license, as long as a link to the original work (and license) is given.

I don't know the details though, if anyone can help I'd be grateful! :)

[tim-gromeyer]

I have read following 2 sentences:

The MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses are both permissive licenses that put no or very little restriction on what licenses you can use for your own code (even if that code is a modification to MIT/Apache 2.0 licensed code).

Source: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/12904/25784

Both the Apache License and the MIT license are permissive, so incorporating MIT licensed code into your Apache licensed project is certainly allowed. Just be sure to attribute the original author for the parts your incorporated and include a copy of the MIT License terms, as required by the license.

Source: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/6758

I'm definitely not a licensing expert but according to quotes I put above it's possible as long as you attribute the original author for the parts your incorporated and include a copy of the MIT License terms, as required by the license.

[MBkkt]

@tim-gromeyer

Both the Apache License and the MIT license are permissive, so incorporating MIT licensed code into your Apache licensed project is certainly allowed.

Yes, it's definitely true, mit can be used almost everywhere, mit a little less restrictive than apache2.

But this issue is about is it ok to use apache2 in mit

[MBkkt]

Both the Apache License and the MIT license are permissive, so incorporating MIT licensed code into your Apache licensed project is certainly allowed

incorporating MIT licensed code into your Apache licensed project

Here is opposite situation, it's reason why I created an issue. I also not license expert, so...

[tim-gromeyer]

I think the best thing we can do is to put it on Quora.

[a4z]

chat GPT says the following (this is not a legal advice, but maybe suitable enough)

---

The Apache license and the MIT license are both permissive open source licenses, which means they allow you to use and distribute the licensed software under certain conditions. However, there are some differences between the two licenses that you should be aware of when considering using code from an Apache-licensed project in an MIT-licensed project or vice versa.

The Apache license requires that you include a copy of the Apache license with any distribution of the software, as well as any copyright notices and disclaimers. Additionally, if you make any modifications to the code, you must indicate what changes you made and when you made them. The Apache license also includes patent license grants, which can be important if you plan to use the software in a commercial context.

The MIT license is also a permissive open source license, but it has fewer requirements than the Apache license. It does not include any patent license grants, and it only requires that you include a copy of the MIT license with any distribution of the software.

Assuming that you comply with the requirements of both licenses, you should be able to use code from an Apache-licensed project in an MIT-licensed project, and vice versa. However, it's always a good idea to review the terms of the licenses carefully and seek legal advice if you have any questions or concerns.

---

so maybe it's enough to have an additional folder with copyright notices and disclaimers plus a compy of the Apache license?

[jothepro]

Mh, I think I am starting to understand the problem space. I have explicitly mentioned the source of the icons and I have referenced the License in the code file:

// SVG icons from https://fonts.google.com/icons
// Licensed under the Apache 2.0 license:
// https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
static lightModeIcon = `<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"...`
static darkModeIcon = `<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"...`

from my understanding this provides both the required notice and disclaimer, but I didn't include a copy of the License. So adding a copyright folder in addition to the link to the license might indeed make sense. 👍

[a4z]

I also wonder what that means for my projects when using doxygen-awesome-css, I guess something needs to be done ... 🤔

[MuellerSeb]

What about "drawing" a moon and a sun "by hand"?