From: Christoph Ludwig (cludwig_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-30 14:20:35
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:31:10PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > the boost license (http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) does not
> > allow redistributing modified versions. Is that intentional or an
> > oversight?
> I also thought that this is a bug. Boost's lawyer(s) got it right.
> No "redistribution" permission needed. It's all in the 17 USC 109.
After I figured out that USC stands for "United States Code" I looked
it up at <URL:http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm>, only to find that US
lawmakers don't produce more comprehensible language than their German
counterparts. I didn't see where this particular law covers Falk's
question, but if the lawyers who drafted the Boost license say so, I
However, that brought another question to my mind: USC can only apply
if at least one party of the license agreement is living or based
in the US. (That's my layman's understanding, at least - IANAL) But is
Boost a legal entity that can be party to a contract? Or do I in fact
accept license agreements with the individual Boost contributors?
If the latter holds and I use a Boost library contributed by someone
living in Germany, then only German law applies, doesn't it? And if
the library I use was contributed by someone living in Russia does
then only Russian and / or German laws apply?
Does anyone know whether this does or does not constitute a real
problem? (A far fetched example: As I read the Boost license it
denies _any_ liability, even in cases of gross negligence. I could
imagine that a German court voids the disclaimer on the grounds that
it is too broad. But then, I don't have any in depth knowledge about
German liability laws.)
-- http://www.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/TI/Mitarbeiter/cludwig.html LiDIA: http://www.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/TI/LiDIA/Welcome.html
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk