From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-03 11:57:37
> > http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License gives requirements:
> > License requirements
> > a.. Must be simple to read and understand.
> > b.. Must grant permission to copy, use and modify the
> > software for any use (commercial and non-commercial) for no fee.
> > c.. Must require that the license appear on all copies of
> > the software source code.
> > d.. Must not require that the license appear with
> > executables or other binary uses of the library.
> > e.. Must not require that the source code be available for
> > or other binary uses of the library.
> > f.. May restrict the use of the name and description of the
> > library to the standard version found on the Boost web site.
> > Unfortunately, it appears that "public domain" does not meet the
> > requirement listed.
> The last "requirement" is a "may", not a real requirement. A license
> have to restrict anything. So PD is Ok, there. It runs afoul of point
> far as
> I can see.
> I think you are allowed to offer two different license terms, though,
> can offer
> your source code under non-Boost-compatible terms, too.
Granted, c) would need tweaking for public domain to be acceptable. All
in all, it's a bit difficult to fit in "public domain" against
requirements that seem to have been defined with the assumption that
there would be a licence required in the first place. :-) No rationale
for that particular decision was documented, so it's not clear to me
that it was actually consciously made.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk