From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-18 16:21:53
"christopher diggins" <cdiggins_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:03 PM
> Subject: [boost] Re: Re: google going open source
>> "christopher diggins" <cdiggins_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> | Are you saying that BSD requires the copyright notice along with
>> | executables?
>> | "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>> | copyright notice,
>> That seems pretty clear to me; how else would you interpret the quote????
> I thought I made my interpretation perfectly clear in the part of the
> email you snipped:
> "It seems unreasonable to consider using and compiling a library in an
> executable as a binary redistribution of a derived work of the library"
This was your opinion, and not part of the quoted license text. I'm sorry
but the only text that matters is that which is part of the license. IIRC,
the boost license avoids these sorts of conditions at the behest of several
corporate IP legal staff, who otherwise would have not approved of the use
of boost in their client's/employer's software products.
> I consider a binary redistribution of a library (or derived work from a
> library) to be an object file, a .dll, or .zip file. An executable does
> not in any way resemble a source code library in form or function, which
> logically implies that it is not a "redistribution in binary form". Like I
> said, I am not a legal expert which is why I asked about legal precedent.
> Throsten, I found your exagerrated overuse of question marks and the fact
> that you snipped the relevant portion of my email discourteous.
Thorsten did retain the relevant portion, the quoted license text.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk