[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-01 03:35:45

Ed Brey wrote:
[...]
> 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.

You'd have a collective work if "your book" would include some
"chapter(s)"/portion(s) independently [in the sense of copyright 
law] written by others. Uhmm, a good example is probably this: 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387954015
(The Origins of Concurrent Programming: From Semaphores to ...)

Now, imagine that *I* would write something in Russian and you'd 
simply translate it to English using, say, the AltaVista's Babel 
Fish translator (or something like that). I think that all such 
material (portion(s)) would be derivative work(s). BTW, you would
have pretty much the same thing with a "static linking" for some 
library full of templates and that was shipped to you in a source 
code form only. You'd simply have some portion(s) of your program 
originated from others and translated to some executable machine 
language (or whatever) creating portion(s) that are derivative 
work(s). But the book itself (and "your program") would still be 
a compilation, I believe. I would have absolutely >>no rights<< 
whatsoever with respect to the book/program portion(s) that were 
independently written by you. With a "dynamic linking" OTOH, your 
distribution would NOT need to include "dynamically linked works" 
originated from others (in either original or "translated" form; 
i.e. "derivative work"). I guess that's the only difference with 
respect to "static" and "dynamic" linking. Oder?

> 
> Does that make the CD a compilation or a derivative work?  
> I don't know.  

See above.

[...]
> The legal definition of "copy" that Peter posted - ...

is legally irrelevant, I believe. Legally, a copyright owner 
can license (subject to requirements/limitations) the following 
rights:

- the reproduction right (making "reproductions"/"copies")
- the adaptation right (making "derivative works")
- the public distribution and first sale right 
- the public performance right
- the public display rights

For details on licensing, pls see the CPL.

regards,
alexander.