RE: [Boost-Users] What is wrong with the GLPL?

From: scleary_at_[hidden]
Date: 2002-11-22 10:01:59

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Werle [mailto:yg-boost-users_at_[hidden]]
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I just came across http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License
> where it is stated that any boost library license
> 
> - Must be simple to read and understand. 
> - Must grant permission to copy, use and modify the software for 
>   any use   (commercial and non-commercial) for no fee. 
> - Must require that the license appear on all copies of the 
>   software source code. 
> - Must not require that the license appear with executables 
> or other binary 
>   uses of the library. 
> - Must not require that the source code be available for 
> execution or other 
>   binary uses of the library. 
> - May restrict the use of the name and description of the library to 
>   the standard version found on the Boost web site.
> 
> At the same place one can find
> 
> "Restricted licenses like the GPL and LGPL are not acceptable."
> 
> I may have overlooked something, but I feel like the LGPL meets the 
> requirements above. Could You please explain or point to further 
> information about this issue.

The main problem with LGPL is the "relinking" clause, which requires any
distributer of a work that uses the library to allow the end-user to re-link
the executable with a different version of the LGPL'ed library.  While this
makes sense for traditional libraries, it causes real problems when
templates get involved; think of what this means for template libraries
covered by the LGPL: in order to allow the user to relink with a newer
version of the LGPL library (which is the intent of this clause), the source
that uses the LGPL'ed templates must be distributed.

There is a second problem with the LGPL in its restrictions of modified
copies of the original source (i.e., you can't take an LGPL library, enhance
it, and then sell it).

This is not to imply that LGPL or GPL are bad choices for a project; I'm
working on a GPL project myself.  But they don't fall under Boost's "totally
free" licencing guidelines.

If you want more info for your licencing decision, check out the Open Source
Initiative (http://www.opensource.org/).

        -Steve