Re: [boost] A possible addition to the boost license FAQ

From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-07 17:32:21

Martin Wille skrev:
> Bjørn Roald wrote:
>   
>> Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
>>     
>>> If you can dual-license with boost software license and a payed one
>>> for a organization that may want to pay, then how couldnt you
>>> dual-license on gpl and boost license?
>>>   
>>>       
>> I think you can dual-license GPL with  _more_ restrictive licenses, Such 
>> licensing simply adds the freedoms of the GPL (GNU world) to the 
>> software.  See e.g.
>>     
>
> If you are the copyright holder then you can license your stuff in any 
> way you like. Nobody can restrict your rights as a copyright holder.
>   
agreed
> If you are free to user other software (Boost) in basically any way you 
> like (BSL), then you're of course free to relicense it under a single or 
> dual license and together with your additional code or not, even if the 
> additional license imposes more restrictions on the user.
>   
 From the Boost Software License point of view, this is OK -- Yes.
>> Q: Can I dual-license my software under both the GPL and the Boost 
>> Software License?
>> A: The Boost Software License allow this, but not the GPL.  This is not 
>> allowed due to the copyleft restrictions in the GPL.  See: 
>> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/#WhatIsCopyleft.  Specifically, the problem 
>> is with the GPL requiring all modified and extended versions of the 
>> program to be free as well.  The Boost Software License allow the 
>> licensee to make non-free modified and extended versions of the program.
>>     
>
> To my understanding, all this refers to publishing formerly GPLed code 
> (Qt) under BSL. Since GPL tries to be quite restrictive you're not free 
> to republish under BSL.
>   
True (except from the Qt part??).
It was written in the sense of attempting to retaining the copyleft 
restrictions of the GPL, which the Boost FAQ does not need to be 
concerned with.  These GPL restrictions have a purpose which many see as 
a freedom to use, not a restriction.  It all depend on your point of 
view.  Anyway, the the copyright owner is probably entitled to do as 
he/she wishes.   If it  make sense is an entirely different question.  
 From the GPL perspective a dual-license with BSL will effectively brake 
the "rights" promised by the GPL copyleft-clauses.  
> The OP's problem was the other way round, though.
>   
maybe.

---
Bjørn