Re: [boost] Previously GPL'd Code

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-30 15:10:10

Greg Colvin <Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden]> writes:

> At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>>"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> Glenn --
>>>
>>> Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
>>> boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
>>>
>>>  
>>>> A licensing question for everyone:
>>>> 
>>>> Is there any problem with submitting, for possible inclusion in
>>>> Boost, a library that was previously released under the GNU GPL?
>>>> The submission would, in its new incarnation, be covered by a
>>>> license that meets the Boost criteria. It would be submitted by
>>>> the original copyright holders and would include no modifications
>>>> made by others who received the library under the GPL.
>>>
>>> Since the original copyright holders are effectively changing the terms
>>> I don't see why this would present a problem -- they are certainly free
>>> to change the terms.
>>
>>I have not answered because IANAL, so I have no clue whether this is
>>legally sound or not.
>
> I'm no lawyer either, but it's not unusual for the owners
> of code to release it under both GPL and another license.
> The other license is usually more restrictive, but I can't
> see that it matters.

If it was ever accepted by GNU, I think the authors had to sign it
over to the FSF.  Did they?  Does that matter?  I don't know the
answers.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution