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

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in a Boost.Chrono/Date library
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-11-03 02:04:00

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 02/11/2015 1:06, Howard Hinnant wrote:
>>
>> I did not intend for there to be a “binary clause" for this date/time
>> library.  My intent was to make this library have as small a legal
>> footprint as possible.
>
>
> Thanks for the details Howard. According to
>
> http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#License
>
> it seems to me that MIT License should be acceptable in Boost (except maybe
> for the last requirement below):
>
> <quote>

[snip]

> The license requirements:

[snip]

> - Must not require that the license appear with executables or other binary
> uses of the library.

[snip]

> </quote>

I'm not a lawyer but I think that the above may be violated as MIT
requires the license to be included in "all copies or substantial
portions of the Software" [1], which includes binary forms, IMHO. At
least, that's the part that is not clear in MIT license as opposed to
BSL and Boost licensing policies.

In any case, one of the advantages of Boost so far has been a
relatively easy legal analysis for users as all libraries are under
BSL (it's not always been the case, but I think now it is). Adding a
library with a different license complicates use of Boost, especially
if there appear interdependencies between the proposed
Boost.Chrono.Date and other Boost libraries under BSL.

[1]: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT