Re: [boost] [Important For All Boost Contributors] BSL Status Update

From: Stephan T. Lavavej (stl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-25 00:14:22

[Stephan T. Lavavej]
> I ran it on all of the directory names in libs, in current
> Boost CVS, except for CVS, python, and serialization - the
> last two gave errors.

[Doug Gregor]
> Thanks!

Sure.

I had to copy a .css file to a different directory to get bcp to work in the
first place.  I don't know why bcp was complaining about python and
serialization, and I didn't know enough to hack around it.

[Stephan T. Lavavej]
> The following people ARE in blanket-permission.txt, but have
> used these alternate names in Boost code.
> Doug Gregor

[Doug Gregor]
> This one should now be fixed...

Great!

[Stephan T. Lavavej]
> * "Files that could be converted to the Boost Software
> License" should be. There are a lot of files there.

[Doug Gregor]
> I'll see if I can come up with a program to do this
> automagically. We have to be _very_ careful with this,
> though.

Ok.  I agree, that's something that can't be screwed up.

[Stephan T. Lavavej]
> I don't think "boost org" is a real organization.

[Doug Gregor]
> I'll take care of this.

Awesome!

[Stephan T. Lavavej]
> * The following organizations (or people with really, really
> weird names) hold copyrights to non-BSL libraries. They
> should be contacted.
> Free Software Foundation Inc

[Doug Gregor]
> They're not going to agree to the BSL, that's for sure :)

The Boost site says that all libraries in Boost, even those not under the
BSL, conform to Boost licensing requirements (which excludes the GPL and
friends).

So the FSF code in Boost shouldn't be under the GPL or any of its
derivatives.  From my decidedly non-lawyer point of view, the BSL is just a
precise statement of the Boost licensing requirements.  So the FSF may not
be ideologically opposed to BSL conversion.

But I don't know what the FSF code in Boost is actually licensed under.

> This only affects the Graphviz parser in the BGL, which is
> due for a rewrite soon anyway.

Ok.  This does not personally affect me (I'm real interested in bind and
smart_ptr for work), but it should be cleared up.

Thanks for looking into some of the [quasi-]organizations I listed.

> We should make this a requirement, I think.

Agreed.

> Probably just a form of license not matched by one of the
> regexes in bcp. Easily fixed, with a little time investment.

> it might be more useful to have that scorecard showing which
> libraries are completely under the BSL. Both are easy enough
> to implement.

Such a scorecard would be excellent (something to point Microsoft's Big
Scary Lawyers at).

Thanks for your continuing great work!

Stephan T. Lavavej