From: Matt Hurd (matt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-26 06:35:15
>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
>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
"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,
>created a derived work of the copyrighted code. That's the way
>law works, even if your code is really large and the cut-and-paste
>copyright code is fairly trivial. (Under some circumstances copying a
>portion can be considered "fair use", but that is starting to drift
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
obtaining a copy of the software covered by this license (the
to use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the
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
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
If you desire to have your derivative work under a different umbrella
for source distribution then the issue seems significant to me.
PS: does #include <boost/any_old_header.hpp> make you a derived work?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk