Re: [boost] Re: google going open source

From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-18 12:31:24

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik.list_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 11:48 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: google going open source

> christopher diggins wrote:
>> I am not a legal expert, but I see no reason one can not add a Boost 
>> license to code already licensed under the BSD version 2.0. It just makes 
>> for a screenful of disclaimers for every header.
>
> The BSD 2.0 has the advertisement clause even in binary use. The Boost 
> license requires unrestricted binary use.

Are you saying that BSD requires the copyright notice along with 
executables?

If so, I read it differently:

"Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution."

It seems unreasonable to consider using and compiling a library in an 
executable as a binary redistribution of a derived work of the library. I do 
realize the Boost library does contain:

"... unless such copies or derivative
works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by
a source language processor."

Isn't this legal exception just paranoia, or is there actual legal precedent 
to warrant it?

Christopher Diggins
Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL)
http://www.ootl.org