Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-13 15:56:14
On 13/04/2017 15:06, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Because the license clearly states that the
> owner grants a right to use, and defending in court the proposition that
> this grant somehow only applies for use in a copyright sense but not for
> use in a patent sense (as if there's a difference) will be an
> interesting exercise.
I would never second guess a clever lawyer.
The point being made is not whether any licence is enforceable in court.
Most have never really been tested in a court, even the GPL. It is about
risk minimisation to a lawyer, and persuading Corporate Lawyers that the
licence on some bit of open source is minimum risk or not.
I have seen no persuasive argument that the BSL is perceived as less
legal risk to lawyers than the Apache 2.0. From all my interaction with
Corporate Legal departments over the years, never mind trying to get
Professional Indemnity insurance for works covered by the BSL as against
a better known licence (tl;dr forget about it, they won't insure BSL
licenced code, at least in Europe), I am very sure that the Apache 2.0
is a safer, more acceptable, more inclusive, more commercially friendly
licence than the BSL.
New Boost libraries should as a minimum, use the Apache 2.0 licence in
preference to the Boost licence. Period.
-- 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