Re: [boost] Re: License updates for 1.30.2

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-17 12:29:37

At 11:30 AM 9/17/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
 >Darren Cook <darren_at_[hidden]> writes:
 >
 >>> Aren't MIT and BSD different?  Why lump them together?
 >>
 >> I had them that way to start, but there were almost the same so it
 >> seemed more natural to put them together.
 >>
 >>>>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,
 >>
 >> I think we can link to the opensource.org site for people who care
 >> about being complete. I think all we need is a simple explanation of
 >> key differences for programmers skimming to decide if they should
 >> bother even evaluating Boost or not.
 >>
 >> ...in fact from that point of view how about:
 >>
 >> Q. How is it different from the MIT or BSD license?
 >> Basically the same. See
 >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php and
 >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.
 >
 >Raises more problematic questions than it answers.  For example, "why
 >didn't you just use BSD then?!?!"

I think Darren is on the right track in keeping the comparison brief, but 
agree with you that it needs to be explicit enough to explain why we don't 
just use MIT/BSD.

How about:

Q. How is it different from the MIT or BSD license?

B. The Boost license is similar, but among other differences does not 
require reproduction of copyright messages for object code redistribution.

The "MIT" and "BSD" would be hyperlinked to the above URL's.

--Beman