Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-12 22:55:54
>>> 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.
> reference please
You can search this list's archives for many tales of woe when trying to
get Legal in a multinational to approve usage of Boost.
I'm not saying it's all due to the Licence, there are other causes. But
lawyers like detail, and the BSL lacks clarity. The biggest objection I
always heard from Legal(s) was patent threat, and the BSL says
absolutely zero about patents.
You may notice all the v2.0 revisions of major open source licences do
now say something about patents. That's why.
If the steering committee might be thinking of fixing the BSL, better to
adopt the Apache 2.0 licence
https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html. It has 25% of the open
source market according to Wikipedia, and it's very well recognised by
Legal, unlike the Boost licence. It isn't ideal for European
jurisdictions, but it is widely recognised here too. They know how to
deal with it upon sight, so in that sense it greatly improves on the BSL.
-- 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