[boost] Re: Boost License Issues

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-26 12:38:52

David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> > Sean Parent wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Dealing with copyright and patent issues in IP is all about risk management
> >> for a corporation and limiting their exposure. The deeper the corporate
> >> pockets the more conservative a stance the organization will tend to take.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> >>
> >> What Adobe looks for is that: ....
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > Public domain <http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1390498> aside,
> > you might want to take a look at:
> >
> > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php
> > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
> 
> Why? Is there something about these licenses which warrants our
> attention more than the plethora of other open-source licenses
> floating about? We probably can't review all of them...

You probably can ADOPT one of them [with whatever changes you might
want/need to add] and require all contributors to accept it for each
and every contribution to boost. The "Common Public License Version 
1.0" that was developed by the IBM's lawyers/etc. is probably a good 
starting point. AFAICT/AFAIK [speaking for myself {NOT IBM} with 
respect to the CPL}, it is: [just a few details... IANALBIPOOTN ;-)]

 - Next version of the IBM Public License;

 - Preferred license for the release of IBM code as open source;

 - Modifications to be licensed back under the CPL to earlier 
   contributors of the code;

 - All warranties are disclaimed (provided "AS IS");

 - Binary forms of original and derived works can be combined 
   with non-CPL code and the result distributed under a non-CPL 
   license (including commercial);

 - Explicit grant of patent license to contributors' contributions.

regards,
alexander.