Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-12 21:49:30
Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 22:18, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> > 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.
"- The Work: the Original Work and/or its Derivative Works."
"- The Source Code: the human-readable form of the Work which is the most
convenient for people to study and modify."
> 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
That's not how I read it.
> 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.
We also allow binary distribution without attribution.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk