Boost logo

Boost :

From: Robert McCarter (RobertMcCarter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-13 12:32:32

I don't think this issue is worth reopening. It sounds like the only thing
that has really changed since this was last discussed was that one
corporation's lawyers had to read through several licenses. But they DID
read though them. Although I am a very new "booster" surely when the
current licensing scheme was decided upon this issue was foreseen. All the
advantages that helped decide the current licensing scheme still stand.

>> My impression is that if boost had a central license for all the
>> libraries, the legal department would be much happier.
Besides, isn't reducing the amount of paper work a corporate lawyer has to
wade through the fastest way to make them unhappy? :-)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:14 PM
Subject: [boost] Corporate legal department reaction to Boost license

> I've been having a private email exchange with a corporation that is
> planning to use Boost internally. The developers involved asked their
> corporate legal department to give the OK. While the current Boost
> situation isn't a showstopper, the legal eagles were uncomfortable with
> having to look at many licenses rather than just one license. Here is a
> comment from a developer, and my response.
> >My impression is that if boost had a central license for all the
> >libraries, the legal department would be much happier.
> I can understand that.
> > This may be something boost should consider.
> We've talked about it in the past. The issues that blocked us included:
> * We felt if we did that then a lawyer should write the license, and with
> no budget and no legal volunteers that was a stumbling block.
> * We have developers contributing from multiple countries, and that
> confused us as to how international law might affect licenses. Current
> libraries have been contributed by developers from at least the US, UK,
> Germany, Bulgaria, and Finland, and I've probably missed a few.
> * While most Boost developers contribute libraries in their own name,
> are contributed by universities and corporations. Those entities often
> have their own lawyers, who may want to have a say in license wording.
> All that being said, we probably should reconsider the issue. I'll post a
> copy of my comments above on the Boost list to see what people think.
> Boosters, is it time to reopen this issue?
> --Beman
> Info: Unsubscribe:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

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