Boost logo

Boost :

From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-06 08:03:54

On Thursday, February 06, 2003 6:57 AM [GMT+1=CET],
Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Recently had a talk with a patent-laywer from Philips. I deduced following
> from this conversation (my own interpretation and IANAL)
> Copyright is automatic. From the moment you make something, you own the
> copyright (so
> actually no explicit copyright statement is necessary although it is
> advised). From the
> moment you change a file that is copyrighted by somebody else, copyright
> shared (of course, generally the copyright does not allow you to make
> modifications)
> Now open-source projects (including boost) want to provide more rights to
> the user as the default copyright allows. So we add a copyright notice
> indicating a license. This license is necessary to allow others to make
> modifications, distribute it etc.
> So that's why the boost source-code can be considered open-source. However
> if a Jamfile
> does not contain a license, default copyright-right apply and thus the
> Jamfile can not be distributed by others than the copyright-holder.
> So we certainly need to add a license statement and at the same time might
> indicate
> the copyright too (Indicating the license is still the most important
> aspect).

This all corresponds pretty well to what lawyers have been telling me.
Also, remember that Sean parent asked that when the license requires a copy
of itself in all "copies", it should say "copies of the source code", just
to avoid misunderstanding about any requirement to include it in

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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