From: Walter Landry (wlandry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-05 19:31:53
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > I just realized that the Graph library is licensed under
> > GPL-incompatible terms
> FSF's "GPL incompatibility" claims are barred by the doctrine
> of copyright misuse and the doctrine of first sale. Copyright
> laws of this planet do not establish exclusive right to link.
The GPL has very clear terms for how I can make copies of derived
works. One of those terms is that the complete derived work doesn't
have any additional restrictions above what the GPL has.
Other licenses may not care about derived works, but the GPL does.
This is particularly true for the graph library, since the binary will
contain large chunks of it.
> > (it has a choice of law provision, among other
> > things). In fact, it is basically a copyleft, so I'm surprised it got
> > into boost.
> I for one see nothing troubling with it. But the CPL is much
> better, of course.
I didn't say that I had a problem with it's freeness. Rather it is
incompatible with the GPL. This is the same kind of clause as caused
problems with Python.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk