Re: [boost] Licensing question

From: Tarjei Knapstad (tarjeik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-10 08:47:00

On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 14:49, David Abrahams wrote:
> From: "Tarjei Knapstad" <tarjeik_at_[hidden]>
> 
> > Currently we've had a look at the MIT license, which seems to satisfy
> > your licensing requirements, but I would like to make sure that we don't
> > have potential conflicts. The MIT license looks like this:
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Copyright (c) 2002 Association of C and C++ Users (ACCU)
> <snip>
> > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
> > in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> <snip>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > In particular I'm a bit uncertain if this license satisfies your
> > requirement:
> >
> > "Must not require that the license appear with executables or other
> > binary uses of the library."
> 
> I think it's pretty clear that the license does not satisfy the Boost
> requirements. I don't see how there's any room for uncertainty, but maybe
> I'm misinterpreting something here?
> 
The license defines "this software and it's documentation files" as "the
Software". 

After reading through it a few more times since yesterday, in my opinion
this does not include derivatives, executables or other binary uses of
the library. To my eyes this license is no more strict than any of the
licenses included in Boost, which all require their license to be
included in all copies. The MIT license requires the license to be
included in all copies or "substantial portions of the Software", which
I interpret as a "substantial partial copies/distributions of the
Software" (which only includes original code and documentation - no
binaries).

> > If not, are there any of the OSI approved licenses
> > (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/) that do satisfy the Boost
> > requirements?
> 
> In a quick and not-very-thorough review, I didn't see any.
> 
I'm becoming more certain that the MIT license does...? I also just
noticed, while browsing the Boost code, that the Boost Graph Library is
licensed under the "Artistic License", which is OSI approved, but in my
opinion does not satisfy:

*  Must be simple to read and understand.

Cheers,
-- 
Tarjei Knapstad