Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-30 19:50:47

On 01/30/18 22:39, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
>> On 01/30/18 21:40, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The source code is generated from another project with a different
>>>>> license.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmmm - could you elaborate on this please?  I'm aware I could track it
>>>> down
>>>> on my own, but since you've already done this, it seems much easier just
>>>> to
>>>> ask you.
>>>
>>> <https://github.com/ned14/outcome/blob/master/Licence.txt>
>>
>> I believe, the author is allowed to distribute his work under multiple
>> licenses. We (Boost) can only require that the version of the library that
>> is proposed for Boost is licensed under the BSL. In the few files that I
>> checked there is the BSL license quoted in the header comment (although a
>> few files were missing any license), so it looks like the Boost.Outcome
>> library is licensed under the BSL.
> 
> If the Boost.Outcome repository sources are  going to be automatically
> "generated" from standalone-Outcome via scripts (currently a Travis
> job?) and standalone-Outcome has all code dual licensed under Apache
> and BSL, what would that mean for contributions to the Boost.Outcome
> library? i.e. Would they have to be contributed to standalone-Outcome
> first, under dual license?

That depends on what the contributor accepts and what the author 
requires of them. For example, if I contribute code to Boost.Outcome, 
I'm implicitly allowing distribution under the BSL but not Apache 2.0. 
Niall is in his rights to ask me if I'm ok to also distribute under 
Apache 2.0. Or reject my contribution. If I contribute to the standalone 
Outcome then I implicitly accept both licenses.

I agree that these things need to be documented somewhere. My main point 
though is that I see no problem if another version of the library (not 
the one in Boost) is distributed under a different license.