Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-26 11:48:15

Sean Parent <sparent_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 2. That the terms of the license state clearly what the rights granted are
> with respect to:
> Reproduction
> Producing Derivative Works
> Perform Publicly
> Display Publicly


Does the "usual Boost copyright notice" do this part already, or is it
important to mention each of these aspects by name?

For reference:

    // Copyright David Abrahams 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.

> Note that the last two do apply to software which doesn't have a clear
> categorization under copyright law and frequently must be considered a
> literary work. Executing software is considered a "performance".
> 3. Any known patents must also be clearly declared and must be accompanied
> by a license granting use.
> 4. Any requirements that must be met for the license must also be clearly
> stated. Such as terms of payment, or credit. One tricky issue that comes up
> frequently with software is whether a term applies to the source only, or to
> the compiled work. This most frequently comes up with requirements stated as
> "All copies must display this copyright notice." - Was the intension that a
> compiled work be considered a copy and if so, how should the term
> "displayed" be read? It is best if requirements are stated clearly for
> software for both the source and compiled works.

Aha. At least we don't habitually use the term "display". But I get
the point. Should we say "provided this copyright notice appears in
all copies of the source" instead?

> 5. Disclaimers such as "AS IS" are strongly discouraged - they are
> viewed as a statement that the file may or may not contain other
> copyrighted or patented work. Disclaimers weaken the copyrights
> granted. 90% of the time this is where I get involved in a review -
> usually reviewing the authors history and the specific material to
> determine if this is something the author just threw in thinking it
> protected them or is specifically intended to mislead. I've had
> pieces of code that I've reviewed that are under the GPL that are
> handed off "AS IS".

Ouch. Can you ask your lawyers how library authors can protect
themselves from lawsuits over software malfunction without raising the
idea that the software itself may be stolen work?

                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] *
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution

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