Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-15 18:08:47
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Niall Douglas via Boost
> Sent: 12 April 2017 21:56
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Niall Douglas
> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
> > This issue often confuses users. Especially non native speakers for
> > whom all that perfectly measured legal words make absolutely no sense!
> > Seriously, I need to spend about an hour to understand what a license
> > is talking about. And I *know* the restrictions, it's just
> > unbelievably hard to convert legal words to understanding.
> > What's worse - BSL is not a very popular license. There's probably
> > only 1-2 pages in non-English languages about BSL on wikipedia. Other
> > wiki pages redirect from BSL to Boost libraries. So for example I can
> > get no information about BSL in Russian. I've tried twice to translate
> > BSL to Russian. Both times the wiki page was removed as a
> > minor/useless topic.
> Also, translations prepared by non-lawyers are problematic.
> > Could we somehow solve the issue in Boost by
> > * also distributing Boost under the MIT license (super extremely very
> > close license)
> > * or by summarizing the differences between BSL and MIT in simple
> > English like here http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/44116
> I would *really* prefer the EUPL over the MIT licence. The EUPL comes in
> 22 languages and was written to work well in any of the major legal
> systems in the world, including Russia's.
> I'm currently strongly considering placing Outcome and all my Boost like
> libraries under the EUPL licence. It far better matches the "Licence
> requirements" at http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html than
> the Boost licence does. And it comes in 22 translations as prepared by
> lawyers in those languages, and those translations have undergone
> multiple rounds of peer review and checking. It is a far superior
> licence for Boost code.
I can't help myself bike shedding that clause 8 looks to have less complete no-liability.
"Except in the cases of wilful misconduct or damages directly caused to natural persons, the Licensor will in no event
IANAL, but might look as though - If someone dies from a life-support software malfunction, the author is on the hook? (Damage to
'un-natural persons' are exempted I note ;-)
It looks like a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it to me".
If your lawyers can't be bothered to read or translate the Boost license, or don't like it - tough?
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk