[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License

From: Ed Brey (brey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-30 13:12:49

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>> * 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":
> 
> <quote>
> 
> 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
> collective works.
> 
> [...]
> 
> </quote>

In the use case I am asking about, which is typical for shrink-wrap software, only the libraries are pre-existing.  The main program, the help files, and the read-me file are all brand new and they are all created together and are used together.  It would be seem artificial to break them into separate works, like breaking into separate works chapters in a typical book.

Does that make the CD a compilation or a derivative work?  I don't know.  If a compilation, that would be a problem, since compilations are not covered in the exception clause.  This problem would be in addition to the issue with the word "solely" in the proposed 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. 
> 
> 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).

The legal definition of "copy" that Peter posted - "A copy of a copyrighted work can be used to recover, display or perform the original work" - seems to take care of the second use case.  You've also answered your own RAR archive question, Peter, haven't you?