Subject: Re: [boost] BOOST license & GPL
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-01 18:33:02
2017-04-01 20:22 GMT+02:00 Niklas Angare via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
That's what I'm reading too. The Free Software Foundation believes the
> Boost Software License is "compatible" with the GPL:
I'm refer to
'*Where it gets tricky*
Let's say we have project Foo licensed under Boost, and project Bar
licensed under GPL and which wants to use Foo.
Bar+Foo is allowed since the licenses are compatible, and the release of
Bar+Foo must be GPL as Bar is GPL. Foo, by itself and without Bar *or*
Bar+Foo, is still available under the Boost license. Said another way,
Bar+Foo has no license impact upon Foo itself.
The resulting license of the project combination is a forward acting event
for the combination only. It is *not* a retroactive event.
So if someone else wants to take Foo and do something else with it, they
are still free to do so without the copyleft provision of the GPL. However,
if they take Bar+Foo, delete Bar and only use +Foo then they are still
bound by the terms of the GPL since Bar+Foo was GPL'd.'
> There is a definition of "compatible" in the gpl-faq you linked. Another
> is here:
> But if they distribute the whole thing saying "this is licensed under the
> GPL", doesn't that kind of contradict the requirement to include the Boost
> Software License and the copyright notices? It would feel better to me if
> they said "this is licensed under the GPL and, in part, other compatible
KiCad is free software. KiCad is made available under the GNU General
Public License(GPL) version 3 or greater.
There is no requirement to assign your copyright to anyone to get code
included into KiCad. The only thing we do require is complying with the
GPLv3+ license both in the code you may write and code you may import from
If I understand it correctly, the copied boost code is now licensed under
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk