Subject: Re: [boost] LLVM license compatibility with BSL
From: Anthony Williams (anthony.ajw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-28 06:09:54
"Jens Weller" <JensWeller_at_[hidden]> writes:
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> Datum: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:34:58 +0100
>> Von: Anthony Williams <anthony.ajw_at_[hidden]>
>> An: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Betreff: Re: [boost] LLVM license compatibility with BSL
>> John Maddock <boost.regex_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> >> 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.
>> > The following requirement on that license:
>> > * Binaries derived from LLVM must reproduce the copyright notice
>> > (e.g. in an included readme file).
>> > Is incompatible with the BSL.
>> That was my concern. However, this is *test* code. Do we require the BSL
>> (or a compatible license) for the tests as well as the main library
> How do you want to test a boost library, without deriving a work
> (testcase) from it?
Tests are uses of the library, but the library does not use the tests.
If the license on the tests requires a notice on distributed binaries
(like the LLVM license does) then you only need to put such a notice on
your application if your application itself derives from those tests.
If you write your own code that uses the library then you are not
subject to the license restrictions on the tests, only those on the
-- Author of C++ Concurrency in Action http://www.stdthread.co.uk/book/ just::thread C++0x thread library http://www.stdthread.co.uk Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL, UK. Company No. 5478976
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk