License questions

[FakeTruth]

I would like to use some parts of the MCServer source in my own projects and I'm not sure what I should do before the license allows this.
For example I particularly like the String (AString) functions and File class in MCServer. I want to modify them and name them differently.
AFAIK MCServer uses the Apache 2.0 license, and according to tl;dr legal I can do pretty much anything I want with it, so that's not the issue.
However it says I must

1. Include Copyright
   
2. Include License
   
3. State Changes
   

What is the "Copyright" and how do I include it?
For the license I should include the LICENSE file from the MCServer repository. Do I also need to distribute it when I distribute my software or is it enough to have it in my sources?
Where should I state the changes? And in what detail? For example if I say I used "a modified version of MCServer sources" would that be enough?

PS: The project I am asking this for is a project I do for school, it is open-source

[xoft]

I believe #1 affects the source code - the code should contain a statement of copyright. #2 affects the binary distribution, and usually is done by having all the licenses for the components inside the distributed package. #3 is mixed, both source code and binary distribution should have at least a notice along the lines of "uses code derived from MCServer".

I also believe that as long as you don't do anything really bad, you can "bend" the interpretation of the rules a bit as you need. After all, the only people who could actually send lawyers on you are the people developing MCServer, so it all boils down to how much you trust this community. Me personally, I consider all my contributions public domain, so do whatever you want with them

[SamJBarney]

Hear hear!

[FakeTruth]

I believe #1 affects the source code - the code should contain a statement of copyright.

Ah that's the part some libraries have in the top of each file. MCServer doesn't have that in all files so it doesn't even conform to it's own license (LOL)!

#2 affects the binary distribution, and usually is done by having all the licenses for the components inside the distributed package. #3 is mixed, both source code and binary distribution should have at least a notice along the lines of "uses code derived from MCServer".

I also believe that as long as you don't do anything really bad, you can "bend" the interpretation of the rules a bit as you need. After all, the only people who could actually send lawyers on you are the people developing MCServer, so it all boils down to how much you trust this community. Me personally, I consider all my contributions public domain, so do whatever you want with them

Alright, thanks. I don't really want to spend a lot of time on licenses so I'll just do what I think is fair include license and notify that the code is modified...

[xoft]

I personally hate source files that have a license at the top but nothing else; not a clue then what the file is used for or how it fits into the general scheme of things. So I prefer to use the simple two-comment headers, one specifying the intended filename and the other specifying what it's used for.

[bearbin]

Yeah I think to "State Changes" it counts if you just say that this file modified by ... at the top of the file, or maybe even just putting your copyright in.