Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-13 10:37:11
>> 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.
> Having a section regarding patents in the license implies that the
> author is supposed to perform a research on possible patent
Under Apache 2.0, contributors give a licence to licensees to use any
patents the *contributor* holds. This is exactly the clause that
Corporate Legal wants to see, and what the BSL lacks. Without it, it
allows bait-and-sue on code because say someone like you Andrey could
deliberate contribute code to Boost violating a software patent you
hold. You then wait for people to use your patented code in Boost. You
then sue them for patent violation.
That's why Legal doesn't like the Boost Software Licence. It's an open
season to getting sued for patent violation in those countries where
software patents are a thing (in most of the world they are not
If on the other hand (new, standalone) Boost libraries were under Apache
2.0, Corporate Legal would more readily approve the use of such
libraries in proprietary code.
> Pretty much the same goes for trademarks.
Apache 2.0 allows you to use other people's trademarks so long as you
acknowledge they belong to those other people. You cannot appropriate
another's trademark for yourself. Which is the whole point of a trademark.
-- 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