[boost] Re: License updates for 1.30.2

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-17 08:36:17

Darren Cook <darren_at_[hidden]> writes:

>>>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?

Aren't MIT and BSD different?  Why lump them together?

> 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?

I don't know.  My first impression is that what you wrote is too short
to possibly be complete, but I don't want to try to determine the
differences and what's important myself... IANAL, for one thing, and
for another, that's why I asked _you_ to volunteer!

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com