[boost] Re: Questions about the new license

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-11 08:37:33

"Powell, Gary" <powellg_at_[hidden]> writes:

> I know this is pretty late in the process but also have a couple of
> questions:
>
> #1 I'd prefer that any software I contribute to boost remain "free",
> as in I don't want someone to add 20 lines of code to a library and
> then sell it. You can sell the compiled machine code but not the
> original or the modified source other than to cover duplication and
> distribution costs.

That restriction is incompatible even with the original Boost license
requirements.  The software must be free for any use, including resale
(without modification).

> #2 I have worked for a overly restrictive employer who was paranoid
> that anything anyone might do on their own time might be owned by the
> employee and not the employee. 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
??
> It would be extremely helpful if the license states clearly that
> derivatives cannot be owned.

Please explain.

> I'm all for a company like "Boost Consulting", I think they add plenty
> of value to the boost community and give back way more than they take
> from the free software. However greedy companies have been known to
> take free software, modify it and not return it to the public
> domain. There of course is no time limit and no way to prevent this
> from happening but it would be better if the copyright was a copy
> left.

That discourages reuse, and I think it's also against the Boost
license requirements.

> Also all that bit about the liability disclaimers, forget it, you can
> be sued for anything, at anytime, not withstanding the claim about the
> liability, it might as well not be there for all the good it will do
> us. On the other hand it does give us a leg up in the event of a
> lawsuit, "We claimed it was worthless your honor."
>
> Also one should be able to write a book about boost, use part of the
> documentation without a heap of trouble. But a bound reprint of the
> documentation is owned by????
>
> In general I support this effort. Perhaps some clarifying statements
> in the FAQ would be enough to calm my fears.

Probably not.  It sounds like you have licensing goals that are
incompatible with the intentions of Boost.

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