Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-12 21:52:18
> 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.
> The BSL was written with international consideration in mind. And most
> of the long language you see in other licenses was deemed superfluous as
> it was already covered by various international treaties and accords.
> Obviously, IANAL, but that is my recollection from the various
> discussions and legal team at the time of the BSL.
With respect, the aversion to Boost code by corporate legal teams is
very well known here. Both in the US and outside.
The superfluous wording you mention is highly important because those
international treaties were not equally enacted in each country. For
example, the US only recognises moral copyright to visual artistry
alone. Most of Europe applied that treaty to everything. China has
another application again. You need wording to indicate which enactment
applies, else it is whatever formulation applies in the court in
question rather than what the licensor intended.
I think the BSL was up to par *at the time it was written* as compared
to other software licences at that time. But the world has moved on.
Most open source orgs have released a v2.0 of their licences to reflect
the modern climate, and to reassure those corporate legal teams so the
software is less objectionable. Apache v2.0 licence is an excellent
example of a refresh to solve such worries. Meanwhile the BSL remains
firmly locked in the past.
-- 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