RE: [boost] Draft of new Boost Software License

From: Matt Hurd (matt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-26 06:35:15

Thanks Beman,

>No, including the Boost license doesn't make your source open. There is
>nothing in either the new or old Boost licenses which requires that
source
>code be redistributed or otherwise made available.

I understand the intention and realize that this is the way it has
always been.  It is wonderful to have great work like boost at the
finger tips.

"Is my work a derivate work?", I guess is the gist of the question. How
do you firewall it?  Does a contract with a third party need to address
the boundary of boost code (which maybe modified and embedded or not)
and the proprietary code.

>When you cut-and-paste a bit of copyrighted code into your own code,
you've
>created a derived work of the copyrighted code. That's the way
copyright
>law works, even if your code is really large and the cut-and-paste
>copyright code is fairly trivial. (Under some circumstances copying a
small
>portion can be considered "fair use", but that is starting to drift
>off-topic.)

If a work is a derivate work and you do redistribute, sell or otherwise
license your own proprietary _source_ what is the impact of including
the following statement?
__________

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
organization 
obtaining a copy of the software covered by this license (the
"Software") 
to use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the
Software, 
and to prepare derivative works of the Software, and to permit 
third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so, all subject to

the following
__________

If I have the desire to license source code, which uses boost code, to a
third party, on the basis that my code may not be redistributed then
this statement confuses the issue if I am a derivative work.

For example, I build a risk system for an asset manager.  I use some
boost, perhaps modified.  I include the license as required... and I get
confused trying to separate the consequences in a contract with the
third party.  I had one such messy contract that took over a year to
resolve to mutual agreement :-(

Perhaps this is a non issue as the issue may exist for alternative
licenses.  

If you desire to have your derivative work under a different umbrella
for source distribution then the issue seems significant to me.

Cheers,

Matt.

PS:  does #include <boost/any_old_header.hpp> make you a derived work?