Re: [boost] License updates for 1.30.2

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-21 07:30:28

At 03:55 PM 9/18/2003, Smith, Devin wrote:

 >A few comments with regard to placement of the license, references to
 >the license, etc.:
 >
 >* Because the library authors are the licensors, Boost cannot change the
 >terms under which their libraries are licensed without permission.  If
 >you can't contact the library authors or they won't agree, Boost may
 >have to ship multiple Boost libraries with multiple licenses.
 >
 >Arguably you could have all authors agree ahead of time that by
 >submitting their code, they're agreeing to license the code under any
 >future versions of the Boost license that is developed and agreed upon
 >by the Boost Moderators or whomever.  Then Boost could update all of the
 >licenses at once, having received permission to do so.  I'm not
 >comfortable with this for a variety of reasons including the loose
 >organizational structure of Boost and the lack of any requirement that
 >Boost contributors expressly agree to terms and conditions before
 >submitting their code.  I'd rather just see a reference by the author to
 >a specific version of the license in or in association with the code.

OK. That may have the effect of freezing some libraries at a particular 
version of the Boost license. It makes license stability even more 
important. But that is probably a good thing anyhow.

 >* I'm not sure whether anyone's arguing that new license versions should
 >apply to licensees retroactively, but Boost really can't and shouldn't
 >try to do that.  Licensees have accepted particular terms at the time
 >they downloaded the code.
 >
 >* I recommend that Boost not refer to a license _only_ by URL, because
 >URLs can become unavailable for various reasons.
 >
 >* As long as there's a way to identify the license that doesn't require
 >a URL to work, adding an additional URL reference to the license doesn't
 >hurt.
 >
 >* I recommend the following:
 >
 >  - Use the following text to refer to the license:
 >
 >    Use, modification and distribution is subject to the Boost Software
 >License Version 1.0.
 >
 >  - Include a copy of each version of the Boost license in use by a
 >    shipping library in the Boost distribution.  The version number
 >    should be identifiable both from the license file's name and its
 >    contents

Ah! The contents did identify the version, but the file name didn't. I've 
now renamed the file in CVS.

 >  - Optionally add a URL to *stable* license text, e.g.
 >
 >    Use, modification and distribution is subject to the Boost Software
 >License Version 1.0 (http://boost.org/LICENSE-1.0).

Thanks for the clarifications,

--Beman