[boost] Re: Three questions about the new license

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-17 09:57:28

"Diane Cabell" <dcabell_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Diane, I want to clarify something you may have missed: the point in
>> question does not concern the Boost license itself, but the way in
>> which our source files declare the license to be applicable to them.
>> They do not contain a copy of the license, but instead make reference
>> to it in a comment, typically:
>>
>>   // Copyright David Abrahams 2004. Use, modification and distribution is
>>   // subject to the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying
>>   // file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>
> No, I didn't understand that.
>
> You could just say
> // Copyright David Abrahams 2004 and made available subject to the terms of
> Boost Software License,
> // Version 1.0. (See accompanying
> // file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>

Thanks, that seems less prone to misinterpretation to me also.  Would 

   // Copyright David Abrahams 2004. Distributed under the Boost
   // Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file
   // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)

do just as well?  It's just just a little less wordy -- "made
available subject ot the terms of" sticks in my craw a bit.

> (....)
>> > David Abrahams wrote:
>> >
>>(....)
>>
>> Ugh I don't think we ever considered that "display" would be
>> interpreted other than to mean "display publicly".  Does that mean
>> that in the license:
>>
>>   Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
>>   organization obtaining a copy of the software and accompanying
>>   documentation covered by this license (the "Software") to use,
>>   reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the
>>   Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software, and to
>>   permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so,
>>   all subject to the following:
>>
>> "display" ought to be "display publicly"?
>
> Yes.  But again, private display doesn't require permission, so a
> court would likely interpret this to language to mean "public
> display."  If it went to court, you'd get to testify as to that
> intention.

So IIUC, changing the license wording isn't critical.  We should
probably wait 'till a critical issue comes up before making any
non-critical changes.

>> This is what makes me think you might have missed the fact that "use,
>> modification and distribution" isn't in the license itself.  The
>> suggestion is that "use, modification and distribution" be removed
>> from source files to avoid having to repeat all the rights named in
>> the license.
>
> Yes, I did miss that.  I think it will be solved by deleting reference to
> any specific rights in the comment.

Great.

>> >> (....)
>> >> Sorry, I think I was just bringing up a linguistic technicality.
>> >> These are all copyrightable files.  The question is whether a *thing*
>> >> can be subject to a license, or only actions that might be performed
>> >> on that thing.  That's why I suggested "licensed under ... " instead
>> >> of "subject to ... ".
>> >
>> > Copyright licenses copying; patents protect operations.  Since patent
>> > rights were only recently recognized for pure software, the line is
>> > not really clear in a lot of cases.  Interpretation of the licenses
>> > isn't just limited to the linuisitics, however, but looks at the
>> > purpose the agreement is trying to accomplish, what people in the
>> > trade normally intend to happen in such situations, etc.
>>
>> I'm not sure how to apply that information to our situation.  My
>> remark about "subject to" was akin to saying "I think you're using a
>> noun as a verb; here's a way to phrase it that avoids grammatical
>> problems."
>
> Then I still don't understand your query.  The file is a thing and you are
> licensing rights to use the thing.  The rights are verbs, permitting people
> (or machines) to perform certain activities using the thing. Both of them
> are subject to the license.  I think we're OK.  Maybe Devin has another
> perspective.
> dc

Great, thanks for all your help.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com