Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-11 11:36:01

Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:46:53 -0500, David Abrahams
> <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> IIUC, "the Software" (with a capital 's') includes documentation. Am I
>>> right?
>>Do you consider documentation to be software? I don't.
> No, I don't consider it software either :) I was asking if *in the
> text of the license* they used the word "Software", with an uppercase
> 's', as a shortcut for software + docs. That's because it says:
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
> organization obtaining a copy of **the software and accompanying
> documentation** covered by this license (**the "Software"**)

Now that you remind me, yes, "Software" clearly includes the

>>> b) IIUC again, the comments we are inserting into source files
>>> // Use, modification and distribution are subject to the
>>> // Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file
>>> // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
>>> are unnecessarily verbose (and potentially dangerous).
>>Care to elaborate on why you think it's dangerous?
> Potentially. I was just asking. My question was: the file says use,
> modification and distribution are subject to the license. Taken
> strictly I may interpret that only this three things are subject to
> the license (not display, for instance). If, from a legal point of
> view, "display" isn't one of these three things then I can display the
> software without even reading the license.

Good point. I've forgotten whether "display" legally falls under any
of the categories "use", "modification", or "distribution". It's
amazing how many niggling details can come up in this matter.

> Just like we do in software I would tend to avoid any repetition
> between the license text and the source files comments, so that if the
> lawyers decide to add some other form of usage in the license (imagine
> if they forgot one! :)) we don't have to add it to the source files as
> well. Unless it is guaranteed that "use, modification and
> distribution" cover anything.
> I know, I'm a bit paranoid ;)

Then "they" have you right where they want you ;-)

>>> One could simply say
>>> // Subject to the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See etc. etc.)
>>I don't think a _file_ can be subject to a license, can it? The file
>>just exists.
> Hmm... I don't know. It seems to me that the file is the *medium*
> through which a piece of software is distributed.

If we were to make a change like that one, I'd say "Licensed under the
Boost...", just to avoid any ambiguity.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at