Re: [boost] Re: License

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-11 19:58:36

At 10:59 AM 12/10/2002, David Abrahams wrote:

 >Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
 >
 >> "David B. Held" wrote:
 >>>
 >>> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
 >>> news:uwumlebxz.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
 >>> > [...]
 >>> >  Reminder: If you haven't done one yet, please take a moment to 
review
 >>> >  one of the licenses at
 >>> >
 >>> >
 >>>
 >http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License
 >
 >>>
 >>> I finally knocked off a few of these bad boys.  Not sure if my reviews
 >>> were totally coherent.  I was a little distracted doing some of them.
 >>
 >> Yeah. I've briefly looked at the "review-summary" for LGPL and CPL.
 >> I have a question. Could someone please clarify for me the meaning
 >> of the following "requirement":
 >>
 >> "Must not require that the source code be available for execution or
 >>  other binary uses of the library."
 >>
 >> It is not clear to me what/which "source code" is meant here. The
 >> meaning of "other binary uses" isn't clear to me either. TIA.
 >
 >I think the general intention is to prohibit licenses which require
 >making the sources accessible when compiled code which uses the
 >library is distributed.
 >
 >As to the specifics, Beman wrote them, so I'll leave it up to him to
 >clarify further.

Yes, that was the intent. A license is effectively preventing many uses 
(both commercial and non-commercial) if it requires making source code 
available every time compiled code is shipped.

My guess is that such clauses date from the days when (1) there was no 
Internet, so distribution of source code needed desperately to be 
encouraged, and (2) projects or produces used at most four or five 
libraries - the idea of using hundreds, or even thousands of libraries in 
one project or product wasn't considered.

--Beman