Re: [boost] Draft of new Boost Software License

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-25 21:14:35

At 03:17 PM 6/25/2003, Ronald Garcia wrote:

 >...
 >
 >In reading the license, I think the definition of "Software" needs to be
 >broadened to explicitly include the documentation, test suites, etc.
 >see: >http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php for an example.

I'll pass that on to the lawyers. I'm making a list of issues to ask them 
about.

 > Additionally, the BSD license goes into even more detail
 >with respect to software, binaries, etc.
 >
 >I feel that it's good to have a human-readable license, but it
 >seems more pressing to ensure proper coverage of the legal issues, even
 >if it means that the license gets a little longer.  In this specific
 >case where the license will (hopefully) cover much of Boost, I
 >presume that it will be placed in the distribution and all files covered
 >mentioned by reference.  In that case, it seems fine to me for the
 >license to be longer and more explicit.

One of the worries the lawyers express over longer licenses is that more 
verbiage offers an opposing lawyer more opportunity to find a loophole.

Notice that the new license is sometimes referred to as the "short-form" 
license. There was another proposed license first, which was longer. In the 
end, the senior lawyers preferred the shorter license. There was also 
explicit discussion (and a write-up) on some of the other common licenses, 
such as BSD. It would have been a lot easier for these legal folks to just 
say "use the BSD" license. The reason they went to considerable trouble to 
research and then write a specific Boost license is that they believe it 
will do a better job for Boost than other OSI licenses.

Thanks,

--Beman