Re: [boost] Re: Licensing question

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-10 09:29:11

From: "Carl Daniel" <cpdaniel_at_[hidden]>

> I'm a bit confused by your reply, since the MIT license as presented
appears
> to me to be simply a more verbose version of the text which appears in
many
> boost files, for example:
>
> //  (C) Copyright Beman Dawes 2002. Permission to copy,
> //  use, modify, sell and distribute this software is granted provided
this
> //  copyright notice appears in all copies. This software is provided "as
> is"
> //  without express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to its
> //  suitability for any purpose.
>
> What exactly about the MIT license concerns you?  I can only assume it's
the
> phrase:
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
> in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Yes.

> which may be construed to require the notice in binaries, and it may be
> construed to make no such requirement.  I think normal principles of
> constructive interpretation would dictate that this clause must be
> interpreted as making no requirement on binaries, since
binaries/executables
> are not mentioned in the text.

Oh, I missed the "binary" distinction. Well, in that case I think the MIT
license is perfectly OK.

Sorry,
Dave