Re: [boost] LLVM license compatibility with BSL

Subject: Re: [boost] LLVM license compatibility with BSL
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-27 16:41:41

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vladimir Prus" <vladimir_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] LLVM license compatibility with BSL

> 
> vicente.botet wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have found quite useful to adapt the test for llvm/libc++ ratio/chrono to test Boost.Ratio and
>> Boost.Chrono. But Anthony has signaled me that maybe there is a compatibility problem with the
>> license included in these files.
>> 
>> Is the LLVM License (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license) compatible with the Boost
>> Software License?
> 
> I think the right question is whether that license meets Boost requirements on license. To
> the best of my knowledge, there's no requirement that Boost compoments use BSL.
> 
> It appears that this Boost requirement:
> 
> Must not require that the license appear with executables or other binary uses of the
>          library.
> 
> directly contradicts LLVM's license.

Yes, LLVM license says:

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

In my particular case, as I need to adapt files that are for test purposes, I will be required to add the LLVM license file, but users of the library will not need to add it as far as they don't use the test files, right? 

Could the Boost requirement be interpreted as applicable only to the header and source files, and let some freedom for the test files?

Vicente