Re: [boost] Re: License updates for 1.30.2

From: Darren Cook (darren_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-17 07:55:49

>>Yes, I can probably do that; I seem to remember it was BSD-like but
>>with some slight difference that I didn't fully understand. 
> 
> I'd say it's much more MIT-like, but that's for you to suss out.

Yes, I think you're right.

> http://www.boost-consulting.com/boost/more/license_info.html

How about these additions to the FAQ:

Q. How is it different from the MIT or BSD license?
Same in principle, except the Boost license adds the "machine-executable 
object code generated by a source language processor" clause. See above for 
why. In addition there is no no-endorsement clause as found in the BSD 
license (see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php).

Q. How is it different from the GPL?
The Boost license permits the creation of derivative works for commercial or 
non-commercial use with no legal requirement to release your source code. 
The GPL is also much longer.

Did I get that right and are there any other important differences?

Darren