[boost] Re: License oddity

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-04 08:42:42

Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:21:02 -0500, David Abrahams
> <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>>I just noticed something strange about the license.  It seems to
>>require that derivative works and copies don't use the "by reference"
>>technique we're using to refer to the license in our own sources:
>>
>>  The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement,
>>  including the above license grant, this restriction and the
>>  following disclaimer, must be included in all copies of the
>>  Software, in whole or in part, and all derivative works of the
>>  Software...
>>
>>I'm beginning to wonder if the current "by reference" technique is
>>really compatible with the license.  Will the intrigue never end?
>
> I noticed the same, but I think the underlying idea is that "Software"
> is the whole "package" you distribute. So, as long as your .zip, .tar,
> .tar.gz or maybe even a set of separate files, that you distribute
> contains (in the set-theoretical sense) the license text somewhere
> (for instance in its own file LICENSE_1_0.txt) it's ok.

OK, I guess it depends how you read "included in", but that reading
is good enough for me.

<snip>

> With just one precaution: the license text 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**
>
> Does including LICENSE_1_0.txt in the tarball *cause* the remaining
> files to be covered by the license therein? 

Not by itself, surely!

> If not, then you have to put at least a comment saying "Covered by
> the Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - See etc. etc." in each
> file. But it seems to me that the copyright notices could still be
> elsewhere, at least as far as the license text says. 

OK, I'm satisfied.

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