Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-12 21:43:14
On 12/04/2017 22:18, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
>> Also, from a cursory look, it doesn't seem to require to retain
>> copyright notices and the license in redistributed source code.
> It does, see "Attribution right" in clause 5. It's not even limited to
> source code.
Earlier on "the Work" is defined to be the source code I believe.
> I'm not clear on "Provision of Source Code", it's not limited to the
> Original Work, so it seems to apply to derived works as well. If so,
> this makes the EUPL unsuitable for Boost. We don't require source
> availability for derived works.
It's a much weaker "non viral" copyleft than the GPL because it defers
to any of the compatible licences listed at the end if combined into a
work consisting of multiple licenced codes. I had understood that to
mean that if your EUPL code is used as a library in a bigger project, no
obligations to distribute source land on the licensee, but if they
distribute a modified copy of your library as a standalone thing, then
they can't supply prebuilt DLLs without source code.
But that requirement, now you make me think about it, does violate the
Boost licence which does allow people to derive from Boost and publish
binaries without source. Good catch.
-- 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