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
>> >right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission
>> >still be included according to the draft license.
>> >This would lead to a license text like:
>> 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
>> are bound to include the boost license which makes your source open
>> 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
I would prefer to see acknowledgement of the origin/author(s) as viral.
Still confused but I am a little slow,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk