Adding a License History page based on the Proposed index (#680)

* Add Apache-2.0 License History document

Based on the Proposed index

* Add reference to License History

* Fix link formatting in license-history.md

Author: hen

content/licenses/index.md

@@ -51,5 +51,5 @@ Agreements](/licenses/contributor-agreements.html) page.
 ## Questions?  {#questions}
 
 For answers to frequently asked licensing questions, please consult our 
-[Licensing Frequently Asked Questions](/foundation/license-faq.html) page.
-
+[Licensing Frequently Asked Questions](/foundation/license-faq.html) page. For historical
+context for the creation of the Apache-2.0 license see the [License History](/licenses/license-history.html).

content/licenses/license-history.md

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+Title: Apache-2.0 License History
+license: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+
+<!-- This content was originally posted at https://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/ -->
+
+The Apache-2.0 license was drafted on the "license" mailing list at
+apache.org, which has since been closed, but [archives of the license
+mailing
+list](http://issues.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?listName=license@apache.org&by=thread)
+are available. The draft license was updated on December
+24, 2003, and January 20, 2004, to reflect the first two rounds of comments
+by the public. The final 2.0 license was approved by the ASF board on
+January 21.
+
+The license helps us achieve our goal of providing reliable and
+long-lived software products through collaborative open source software
+development. In all cases, contributors retain full rights to use their
+original contributions for any other purpose outside of Apache while
+providing the ASF and its projects the right to distribute and build upon
+their work within Apache.
+
+# Licensing of Distributions  {#distributions}
+
+For more than two years, we have worked on improvements to the Apache
+License in order to solve several deficiencies with the old one. We had the
+following goals in mind (not in order of preference):
+
+1.  **Clear** <br></br>Lots of questions get asked about 'can I include
+Tomcat/Jserv/xxx in my commercial product,' even though *careful* reading
+of the current license answers that. It may be better to be verbose if that
+cuts down on frequently asked questions. Likewise, many lawyers have
+commented that the original license did not define the terminology
+precisely. *Solved in 2.0 by defining most important terms and separating
+the permissions into identifiable sections.* 
+
+1.  **Reusable** <br></br>The Apache- and ASF project-specific stuff should
+be separated out of the license proper so that both ASF and non-ASF
+projects can use the license terms unaltered. Currently, each ASF project
+has its own, altered, version of the main ASF 1.1 license template. *Solved
+in 2.0 by moving project-specific stuff into the NOTICE file.* 
+
+1.  **Trademarks** <br></br>Avoid listing a specific set of trade marks,
+trade names, and service marks within the license, since that caused
+problems with project-specific licenses and apparent GPL-compatibility.
+Likewise, provide instruction on how and when Apache marks may or may not
+be used, since that is our most common source of licensing question.
+*Partly solved in 2.0 by excluding any permission to use trademarks within
+the license itself and moving related information into the NOTICE file.* 
+
+1.  **Compatible with other licenses** <br></br>Since the ASF aims to
+create software that implements reference standards, it's in the interests
+of the ASF and ASF software users to aim for "compatibility" with other
+widely used software licenses, where "compatibility" means that our
+software can be used and redistributed as part of a combined work. Special
+preference should be given to other widely-used open source licenses, to
+help avoid reinvention of the wheel. *Partly solved in 2.0 by modifying
+trademark clause and moving attribution notices into the NOTICE file.* 
+
+1.  **Patent protection.** <br></br>It would be nice to have some language
+in the license that protected us and our users from patent-infringement
+suits, at the very least from contributors if not in more general ways.
+*Solved in 2.0.* 
+
+1.  **Covers contributions** <br></br>How do we ensure that contributions
+are made under our license and not under some other conditions? *Solved in
+2.0.* 
+
+1.  **Applicable to documentation** <br></br>Make the license clearly
+applicable to both software and documentation. *Solved in 2.0.* 
+
+1.  **Includable by reference** <br></br>We should be able to replace all
+the copies of the license in our files with pointers to a license file
+and/or a URL. And the license should state that this can be done, and
+define the conditions. *Solved in 2.0.* 
+
+1.  **Short!** <br></br>Complete license should be as short as possible,
+and with as little opaque legalese as possible. Less than a page is
+excellent; shorter still is even better. *This is the trade-off -- we lost
+shortness in exchange for more clarity and extra patent and contribution
+coverage. However, the 2.0 license is still considerably shorter than
+comparative licenses, and the ability to license by reference makes the
+actual citations within source files much shorter than before.*
+
+## Apache License, version 2.0  {#2.0}
+
+[http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0](../LICENSE-2.0.txt) 
+
+A big thank you goes out to all those who commented on the proposals. The
+Apache License, version 2.0, was approved for use by Apache projects as of
+January 21, 2004, with all Apache projects required to move to the new
+license by March 1, 2004.
+
+## Contribution Agreements {#clas}
+
+Updated contribution agreements were also published and the latest 
+versions are available at
+[ASF Contributor Agreements](https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html).