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.
> 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
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk