Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-12 21:17:45
>> I'm currently strongly considering placing Outcome and all my Boost
>> like libraries under the EUPL licence. It far better matches the
>> "Licence requirements" at
>> http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html than the Boost
>> licence does.
> A license that is 7 A4 pages doesn't look like one that is "simple
> to read and understand".
A licence which understands that there is a legal world outside the
United States of America and it is not the same needs to be longer.
Many would find the Boost licence insufficiently specified to give
clarity and lack of ambiguity.
> Also, from a cursory look, it doesn't seem to require to retain
> copyright notices and the license in redistributed source code.
> There may be other significant differences, which is difficult to
> learn quickly because of that license volume and language.
I don't know what you're on about here. The language is very simple.
Much clearer than say the GPL.
And the clause you didn't find is on page 3:
"Attribution right: the Licensee shall keep intact all copyright, patent
or trademarks notices and all notices that refer to the Licence and to
the disclaimer of warranties. The Licensee must include a copy of such
notices and a copy of the Licence with every copy of the Work he/she
distributes and/or communicates."
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk