[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-25 12:10:25

Beman Dawes wrote:
> Thanks to Dave Abrahams, Diane Cabell, Devin Smith, and Eva Chen, we now 
> have a pretty close to final draft of a new Boost Software License.
> 
> For as many Boost libraries as possible, the plan is to replace the 
> individual licenses with the "official" Boost license. Of course, the 
> developers who hold the copyrights for each library must agree. We'll 
> also submit the Boost license to the OSI (http://www.opensource.org/) 
> for certification.
> 
> This draft represents a lot of discussion between the lawyers and Boost 
> moderators, and both groups are quite happy with the results. So now 
> it's time to open it up for comments from the whole Boost community.

Nice work and I appreciate it. I hope that something as a single boost 
license will be adopted soon.

> For more background, including rationale, a FAQ, and acknowledgements, 
> see http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/license-background.html
> 
> The draft license itself is at 
> http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/LICENSE.txt

I read the FAQ but I still have a question about the "machine-executable 
object code generated by a source language processor". The Software we 
sell and distribute contains config files in XML, HTML files, 
documentation in various formats and other non-binary files. Even worse, 
some part are written in JavaScript/Java (jsp) or PHP. So there are 
parts that are distributed as source-code, but still it doesn't contain 
C++ sources. From my current understanding, this is not against the 
Booster's intentions and the current licenses. I think that the term 
used in the suggested new boost license could be a problem here. Could 
someone please explain why - as the FAQ put it - "More detailed wording 
was rejected as not being legally necessary, and reducing readability." 
and how this covers the above case. Or is it actually intended that we 
cannot use boost for our project?

> While we are interested in comments from any Booster, we would 
> particularly like to hear from:
> 
> * Boosters for whom English isn't their primary language; is the license 
> understandable?

I'm from Germany ("Old Europe", ya know ;) and I don't have problems to 
understand it. And I'm not an expert in real languages as you might have 
noticed from my other postings already :o)

> * Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they 
> spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team?

Can't really comment on this one as I'm not a lawyer - just a laymen.

> * Boost developers; if there are aspects of the license that make you 
> hesitate about adopting it, what are the issues?

Sadly, yes. See above...

Regards, Daniel

-- 
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de