[boost] Re: about license

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-25 10:00:38

< I'll reply to the .user post here because .devel is much faster ;-) >

Jonathan Arnold wrote:
> 
> A little late to this license party, but I want to make sure I
> know what it means:
> 
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > 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.

Nope. It is considered a compilation (mere aggregation if you like)
and only if the "distribution package" of the application includes 
the boost stuff (which is the case with things like templates). I 
presume "black box" type of usage according to boost's functional 
specs, of course. (no copying of protected elements[1] from boost
into "your" code)

http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html
(see VI.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations)

> >
> >>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
> 
> So if we use boost in our program:
> 
> 1] If we sell it as a compiled program, we can retain our own license
> 
> 2] If we sell it to a customer who wants the source code too, we have
> to use the boost license, and thus the customer is free to give our
> source code away at that point?

Yes/Yes (lack of explicit distribution permission for derivative 
works aside for a moment). But only the portions that are truly 
derivative works of (in the sense of the copyright law) [and/or] 
original boost licensed work(s). IOW, all your non-derivative 
code is unconditionally[2] yours and you're free to distribute 
and license it on whatever terms you like (well, but you should 
better stick to lawful/enforceable terms, of course ;-) ). You 
might want to take a look at the CPL FAQ and perhaps also this:

http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004248.html

regards,
alexander.

[1] http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise24.html

[2] http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7651