From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-30 12:27:54
Peter Dimov wrote:
> 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).
What makes you think so? I'd say that CD is "a compilation":
A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of
preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or
arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes
an original work of authorship. The term "compilation" includes
A "collective work" is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology,
or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting
separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in
which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work
consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or
other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work
of authorship, is a "derivative work".
> 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.
I think that under the CPL [presuming that your CD license would
comply with terms and conditions of the CPL for "CPL-originated"
portion(s)], you'd have to include a URL to the boost library at
boost site (or at your own site, if you like). That's it. Oder?
> > * 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.
Well, you have either a single "derivative work" (since you've
transformed the original work into "a long C string"... heck,
you can even apply some #pragma(rot13), if you like) with some
portion(s) added to the transformed stuff, or you've created a
compilation in which you redistribute the original program (or
"derivative work") in either source code form or object code
form. See the CPL for an example of REASONABLE requirements...
that apply only if you distribute the result, BTW.
> Yep. It is my understanding that our "original" license uses the following
> implicit definition of "copy":
Yeah. The distinction between "reproduction" and "derivative
work" may be difficult (and isn't really important, AFAICS).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk