Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-06-01 12:03:09

Tim Borer asked me:

>Would libraries released under the QPL be acceptable to boost?

The Q Public License found at several web sites appears to be an
example of an open source license
( From the
perspective, many of these licenses have one or more problems:

* A lawyer is often needed to understand them, and each is a little
different so each needs legal review.
* They may require redistribution or at least availability of source
* They may require machine-executable redistributions include a
license document.
* They may give the initial developer rights to modifications made
by licensees.

These may not be serious issues for major pieces of software aimed at
technically savvy users, but for many business, commercial, and
consumer applications any one of them is a immediate
disqualification. Boost wants software that programmers can download
and use right away without subjecting their employers to
hard-to-comply-with license terms. Remember that may commercial
applications nowadays have hundreds of software suppliers if you
recurse through the ownership of each component.

So the current answer is no, Open Source licenses are not normally
acceptable. The sort of terms identified in the copyright notices in
the current libraries are the only restrictions is
currently willing to accept.

This could change for a particularly important piece of software, or
as the industry changes.

I will add an abbreviated version of this response to the FAQ.
Thanks to Tim for bringing up the question.


------------------------------------------------------------------------ home: - Simplifying group communications

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at