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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-30 09:56:33

Ed Brey wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>>
>> I'd like also to point out that it seems to me that the old "in all
>> copies" form is better than the new one; the legal system is
>> sufficiently flexible
>> to reliably recognize a "copy" (i.e. a password protected RAR archive
>> of an mp3 encoded song). The new wording seems to allow
>> self-extracting archives of "the Software" to not carry the license.
>
> To elaborate on this point, allow me to present two specific use
> cases to clarify the potential loopholes, both arising from the
> clause "unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form
> of machine-executable object code generated by a source language
> processor."
>
> * Suppose I create a product containing executables that make use of
> compiled boost libraries (only - no uncompiled boost source).  I
> consider the CD and its content to be the "work" and I copyright it
> as such.  It is a work derived from the Software (Boost license
> definition).  Suppose the CD contains a plain text readme file.  The
> derivative work is not /solely/ in the form of object code.
> Technically, I would have to include the boost copyright info, even
> though that is not the intent of the license.
>
> * Although "language" by definition represents expression with
> constraining rules restricting valid combinations of input, it is
> well established that computer languages make provision for
> encapsulating of unconstrained binary data.  Suppose I create a C++
> program whose sole purpose is to create a file containing a
> significant portion of boost source code.  My program contains a long
> C string which is the boost source code.  Once I compile the C++ code
> into object code, I meet the exception, and don't need to include the
> copyright info, which is contrary to the intent of the license.

Yep. It is my understanding that our "original" license uses the following
implicit definition of "copy":

    A copy of a copyrighted work can be used to recover, display or perform
the original
    work.

This seems to cover your two examples. The CD cannot be used to recover the
Boost source, the program can.