[Boost-users] Re: about license

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-26 18:38:25

Jon Kalb <Kalb_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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"?

The fact you sell your application together with sources doesn't make
the combination a single "work" (IANAL).

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

No, you're misreading it (IANAL but I know the intent).  You're
allowed to charge all you want, but any **non-compiled** derivative
work, once you've sold it, becomes freely redistributable.

> 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.

Exactly.

> 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 don't know what you're getting at here.

> 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.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com