From: Valentin Bonnard (Bonnard.V_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-10 12:49:53
Beman Dawes wrote:
> In private email, Forrest Cavalier points out that the Boost FAQ entry
> regarding licenses is not totally correct. It currently says:
> >>>>Are open source license libraries acceptable? No, not currently. Open
> source licenses often require redistribution or availability of source
> code, inclusion of license document with machine-executable redistribution,
> give the initial developer rights to licensee modifications, and need a
> lawyer to understand. These would be immediate disqualifications for many
> business, commercial, and consumer applications. Boost aims to avoid
> subjecting users to hard-to-comply-with license terms.
> This is subject to review for a particularly important piece of software,
> or as the industry changes.<<<<
> If you look at the open source licenses listed at
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/, most are not acceptable. But
> zlib/libpng is acceptable, I think, and also possibly MIT.
> The zlib/libpng license
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html) is one example of an
> "open source" license which would be acceptable to Boost.
<IANAL>Well, the trivial licenses:
(c) 1900 Foo & bar
Permission to use, modify, redistribute is given to anyone.
Written by Foo BAR
This file is in public domain
both qualify as Open Source. Many Open Source licenses
are acceptable to Boost; many aren't, mainly because:
- they are quite complicated
- they are copyleft
-- Valentin Bonnard
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk