RE: [Boost-users] Re: about license

From: Ben Hutchings (ben.hutchings_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-26 13:09:02

Darryl Green <Darryl.Green_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Cross posted from boost-users...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave_at_[hidden]] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2004 11:43 AM
> > 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.
> 
> Really? The ligitimacy of this stance seems questionable (but ianal
> etc). Further I did not see it as being part of the objectives for the
> license. Quite the opposite in fact.

(Disclaimer: IANAL, and any reputable lawyer would take plenty of time
to provide you with considered advice.)

My understanding is that executable or object code is a derivative
work of all the source code that it is built from.  So any executable
that uses a library is a derivative work of that library.  (There is a
question as to whether this applies to header files that only define
named constants and structure layouts, but little question that it
applies to inline and statically-linked function definitions.  The
FSF asserts that using dynamically-linked function definitions also
creates a derivative work.)

Your source code, however, does not become a derivative work of a
library that it depends on, unless you copy part or all of the
library's source code into it.