From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-25 14:42:04
At 01:10 PM 6/25/2003, Daniel Frey wrote:
>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,
>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.
Reading the entire sentence, the phrase "of the Software" appears three
times. Note the capitalization of "Software". That makes it clear that the
copyright, license, etc, reproduction requirement only applies to any Boost
software, not any non-Boost portions. It doesn't matter what form the
non-Boost portions are in; they aren't covered by the license.
The inclusion of the "of the Software" phrase prevents the problem you are
worried about AFAICS.
>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.
The detailed wording was things like adding "such as a compiler or
assembler" to "source language processor".
> Or is it actually intended that we
>cannot use boost for our project?
No change from the current status. If your project does not redistribute
Boost source code, you don't have to redistribute the license, regardless
of how much non-Boost source code is redistributed.
Hope that helps,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk