RE: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License

From: Matt Hurd (matt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-25 18:01:23

>Matt Hurd wrote:
>>
>> >The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive
license
>> >right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission
must
>> >still be included according to the draft license.
>> >This would lead to a license text like:
>> <snip>
>>
>> I am a little confused.  Like Jaakko, I read it as viral.
>>
>> If you produced a derivative work, or copy paste a little code, then
you
>> are bound to include the boost license which makes your source open
as
>> well...
>>
>> Seems akin to LGPL.
>>
>> Is this the intention or have I misread it?
>
>"derivative works of the Software" != "the Software"

Sorry, I must be having a bad hair day...

I still read it as including the copyright in derivative works from the
second paragraph...

I would prefer to see acknowledgement of the origin/author(s) as viral.

Still confused but I am a little slow,

Matt.