From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-18 12:31:24
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik.list_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
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
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?
Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk