Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-13 12:59:57

Sorry for top-post, but this is to this discussion in general, not to Andrey in particular. If there is a need and interest, may I suggest to carry this discussion elsewhere, possibly starting with a new topic on the boost list. This discussion has drifted far off-topic with regard to the OP question and I am concerned direct responses to the original question was somewhat unclear.

To my understanding, the BSL clearly is intended to, and likely meets the OP’s needs to use Boost code in a closed source project. As always such an answer to users should be given with the disclaimer that users should check themselves how the BSL apply to their needs, their business, their project, and local laws. But it is hard to imagine there should be any real need for concern about issues stemming from Boost code or the BSL in this case.

To combat confusion about the BSL, answers to these kind of questions need to be as simple as they surely are. Having them leading to off-topic discussions like this is not helping anyone. As it stands in my experience, BSL is an excellent license for Boost and its users. I see no need to change licensing in Boost.


> On 13 Apr 2017, at 13:10, Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 04/13/17 13:40, Josh Juran via Boost wrote:
>> Authors who license their own code under the
>> GPL are not bound by the GPL with respect to that code. An author is
>> allowed to offer anything under the terms of the GPL, including a
>> program that links to a binary-only library...
> That's not my reading of the GPL. According to Section 6 [1], everyone, including the author, must provide source code of the (derived) work as part of distribution, which is not possible if the work contains a binary-only component.
> [1]:
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at