Re: [Boost-users] Re: about license

From: Jon Kalb (Kalb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-24 22:30:49

On 2/24/04 5:42 PM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Marleny Rafferty <marleny_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> Hi-
>> 
>> I am considering using boost in my applications, but I have a question
>> about the boost license at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt .  It
>> says (edited) "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to ...
>> use [and] reproduce ... the Software".
>> 
>> It also says that any derivative works must also have the same license
>> grant.
>> 
>> If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a
>> derivative work?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> If so, does that mean that if I distribute my compiled software, I
>> must allow free of charge use and distribution?
> 
> No, the license gives an explicit exemption for compiled code
> (emphasis mine):
> 
> all derivative works of the Software, UNLESS SUCH COPIES OR DERIVATIVE
> WORKS ARE SOLELY IN THE FORM OF MACHINE-EXECUTABLE OBJECT CODE GENERATED BY
> A SOURCE LANGUAGE PROCESSOR.

So you're saying that "I must allow free of charge use and distribution" if
my derivative work is not "solely" in the form of compiled code? If I write
an application that uses the Boost sources and wish to sell it in source
form with the Boost files as part of the package, I can't do it because that
wouldn't be "free of charge use and distribution"?

I don't believe that is the intention of the license.

With the standard "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer, I believe what it is
attempting to say is that you may not distribute the *Boost source* without
this notice even if it is part of a derivative work.

In practice, the files that you create from scratch (for your derivative
work) you may copyright and license as you wish, but the Boost files must
have this license. (If you want to modify the boost files and not have your
modifications covered by the license, I suppose you could call the portions
of the code that are not covered by the license in the source file, but you
might be on legal thin ice.)

I'm not qualified to say if this is what the license actually means to a
judge, but I believe that this is the intent.

-- 
Jon Kalb
Kalb_at_[hidden]