That appears to be the definition of what license they wanted, not the actual license. The license body makes it unclear if I can use this in a closed-source commercial environment On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:51 PM, <boost-users-request@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Message: 5 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:54:04 +0100 From: Mateusz Loskot <mateusz@loskot.net> To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] License questions Message-ID: <CABUeae_a-cNCdw00fYN4Gyb_a7Gk_QOo7cARXNo3Lh8eXAAVtQ@ mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 23 March 2017 at 17:38, Julian D. via Boost-users <boost-users@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I am making a confidential commercial closed-source program, and Boost's libraries seem useful for me. I can't tell if the Boost license allows me to include it in closed-source. Would anybody know?
http://www.boost.org/users/license.html#requirements
2nd bullet
Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
On 23 March 2017 at 22:23, Julian D. via Boost-users <boost-users@lists.boost.org> wrote:
That appears to be the definition of what license they wanted, not the actual license.
And they they got what they wanted. The pages says it clearly. "It was requested that a single Boost license be developed that met the traditional requirements that Boost licenses, particularly: (...) The result is the Boost Software License: (...)"
The license body makes it unclear if I can use this in a closed-source commercial environment
Contact a lawyer then. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Practically the answer is it is fine to include Boost in closed source programs and tons of software does. If you are going to be fussy you can find problems. See this thread from 2013. I doubt much had changed: https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/boost-list/OL4TNAw3GP8 I've worked at multiple companies (large and small) that used Boost without worrying about details like that. Only one company worried about those details and my conclusion is that they were crazy. IANAL On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:36 PM Mateusz Loskot via Boost-users < boost-users@lists.boost.org> wrote: On 23 March 2017 at 22:23, Julian D. via Boost-users <boost-users@lists.boost.org> wrote:
That appears to be the definition of what license they wanted, not the
actual license.
And they they got what they wanted. The pages says it clearly. "It was requested that a single Boost license be developed that met the traditional requirements that Boost licenses, particularly: (...) The result is the Boost Software License: (...)"
The license body makes it unclear if I can use this in a
closed-source commercial environment
Contact a lawyer then. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
You could also contact the lawyer for Software Freedom Conservancy, which is the legal entity of which the Boost Libraries are a project. Or you could save yourself a long of time, money, and heartache and just use the libraries. This is the intent of the license and is the understanding of every contributor to the libraries and everyone that has ever been involved with Boost at any point in its existence. Jon On 2017-03-23, 2:35 PM, "Boost-users on behalf of Mateusz Loskot via Boost-users" <boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org on behalf of boost-users@lists.boost.org> wrote: On 23 March 2017 at 22:23, Julian D. via Boost-users <boost-users@lists.boost.org> wrote: > That appears to be the definition of what license they wanted, not the > actual license. And they they got what they wanted. The pages says it clearly. "It was requested that a single Boost license be developed that met the traditional requirements that Boost licenses, particularly: (...) The result is the Boost Software License: (...)" > The license body makes it unclear if I can use this in a > closed-source commercial environment Contact a lawyer then. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Thanks for the feedback. Was making sure. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Jon Kalb via Boost-users < boost-users@lists.boost.org> wrote:
You could also contact the lawyer for Software Freedom Conservancy, which is the legal entity of which the Boost Libraries are a project.
Or you could save yourself a long of time, money, and heartache and just use the libraries. This is the intent of the license and is the understanding of every contributor to the libraries and everyone that has ever been involved with Boost at any point in its existence.
Jon
On 2017-03-23, 2:35 PM, "Boost-users on behalf of Mateusz Loskot via Boost-users" <boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org on behalf of boost-users@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 23 March 2017 at 22:23, Julian D. via Boost-users <boost-users@lists.boost.org> wrote: > That appears to be the definition of what license they wanted, not the > actual license.
And they they got what they wanted. The pages says it clearly.
"It was requested that a single Boost license be developed that met the traditional requirements that Boost licenses, particularly: (...) The result is the Boost Software License: (...)"
> The license body makes it unclear if I can use this in a > closed-source commercial environment
Contact a lawyer then.
Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
participants (4)
-
John DiMatteo -
Jon Kalb -
Julian D. -
Mateusz Loskot