[boost] RE: [Boost-users] Re: about license

From: Darryl Green (Darryl.Green_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-25 23:56:16

Cross posted from boost-users...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave_at_[hidden]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2004 11:43 AM
> Marleny Rafferty <marleny_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> > Hi-
> >
> > I am considering using boost in my applications, but I have 
> a question
> > about the boost license at 
> http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt .  It
> > says (edited) 
> "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to ...
> > use [and] reproduce ... the Software".
> >
> > It also says that any derivative works must also have the 
> same license
> > grant.
> >
> > If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a
> > derivative work?
> 
> Yes.

Really? The ligitimacy of this stance seems questionable (but ianal
etc). Further I did not see it as being part of the objectives for the
license. Quite the opposite in fact.

> 
> > If so, does that mean that if I distribute my compiled software, I
> > must allow free of charge use and distribution?
> 
> No, the license gives an explicit exemption for compiled code
> (emphasis mine):

[let me just re-insert some additioanl context here]
! The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement
! ...
! must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part,
and
> 
> all derivative works of the Software, UNLESS SUCH COPIES OR DERIVATIVE
> WORKS ARE SOLELY IN THE FORM OF MACHINE-EXECUTABLE OBJECT 
> CODE GENERATED BY
> A SOURCE LANGUAGE PROCESSOR.
> 

I took this to mean that nobody can delete/change the copyright/license
in the sources if they copy or produce a derivative work but that there
is no need to include the license in a binary distribution. It did not
occur to me that leaving the license in place somehow forms a viral
attachment to other source in a source distribution.

It potentially makes this license incompatible with the intent of other
(open and closed) source licenses eg.

// some_gpled_source_file.cpp
// this file is distributed under the gpl

// changed some stuff so we use boost libs
#include <some_boost_lib>
// oops - now it is some boost/gpl hybrid??????

I thought avoiding this sort of thing was precisely why the boost
license was developed. I also thought this interpretation of "derived
work" was somewhat contentious anyway.

In a commercial context, this interpretation appears to make this
license hopeless - anyone obtaining a copy of source code which uses
boost (which you appear to be claiming is automatically a derivative
work), appears to be free to do what they like with it. It is hardly
reasonable that this occur if a company distributes source code with
some particular intent/license for its use. That is even without
considering the issue of copies obtained without the company/authors
permission, whether the copy was obtained accidentally or criminally,
and then redistributed. I'm keen to stop people copying my commercial
executables, but I'm a lot more keen to stop them running off with the
source code!

A bit of digging through the archives finds

http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/1686928

Which seems to explain why I thought the intent was what I understood it
to be. Whatever the conclusion I think this needs to be in the FAQ.

Regards
Darryl Green.

##########################################################################
This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only.  If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
then delete it.  If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, 
disclose or distribute this e-mail without the author's prior permission.  
We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software 
viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any 
attachment to this message.  We cannot accept liability for any loss or 
damage caused by software viruses.

##########################################################################