Subject: Re: [boost] copied boost files in other projects
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-08 10:39:53
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Rene Rivera
> Sent: 08 December 2016 15:18
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] copied boost files in other projects
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
> > On 12/08/16 10:16, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
> >> I encountered some projects that have copied files from boost and replaced
> >> the copyright and license notice by their own. Other projects have added
> >> their own license (for isntance MIT, LGPL ...) beside the Boost license
> >> notice in the copied files - does this mean that the code is dual licensed
> >> now?.
> Well that is unfortunate given how permissive the BSL is.
> >> How does the boost community deal with this?
> I haven't heard of it coming up before.
> I'm not a lawyer, but here's my understanding.
> > BSL explicitly prohibits removal of the license text from the files. This
> > means the particular headers taken from Boost must be licensed under BSL. I
> > think the projects that remove the license are doing it illegally.
> That is my understanding also.
> This does not prohibit derivative works from being licensed under other
> > terms, including the licenses you mentioned, which AFAIK are compatible
> > with the BSL.
> Also my understanding.
> > This does not require to add the other license to the Boost headers, in
> > addition to BSL, and I think doing so is also wrong because it changes the
> > licensing terms on the particular Boost headers without the authors'
> > consent.
> Yeah.. Relicensing under different terms is not allowed under international
> IP rules without explicit permission, AFAIK.
> > I don't know how to deal with this but I think a kind request to stop that
> > practice to the violating projects is a good starting point.
> One option is to contact our SFC legal representative and ask them to look
> into the offending projects. They can then send authoritative notices to
> the projects.
We should object to this strongly.
Especially if the license is more restrictive than Boost licence (GPL) or if any copyright claim is removed.
If it is a derived work, then new copyright claims should be added.
Anyway it is Very Bad Manners (especially considering how unrestrictive the Boost license is).
PS I have seen widespread use of copied Boost.Math text for commercial use without any acknowledgement of copyright or thanks. Poor
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk