Re: [boost] Interest in a Boost.Chrono/Date library

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in a Boost.Chrono/Date library
From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-25 18:57:40

On Oct 25, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Philip Bennefall <philip_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> Personally I would be very interested, however while I'm not a lawyer I see what I think might be an incompatibility or at least a point which raises ambiguity between the Boost license and the MIT license. The Boost license clearly states that binary distributions of derivative works do not require attribution in the documentation, while the MIT license is unclear on this as far as I can tell.
> 
> The relevant portion of the MIT license is:
> 
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
> all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> 
> It is not clear to me what "all copies or substantial portions of the Software" means. The original source package? Derivative works in source code form? Compiled derivative works? A bit of googling gives me conflicting information but most people seem to think that it refers to compiled derivative works as well, which is incompatible with the Boost license if this is indeed the correct interpretation of the MIT license.

My impression with dealing with various big companies (who have lots of lawyers) on this point is that MIT does not require a license on binaries.

This site, while clearly being humorous, seems at least partly based on fact:

http://www.billthelizard.com/2012/05/which-open-source-license.html

:-)

Howard