RE: [Boost-users] Re: about license

From: Darryl Green (Darryl.Green_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-29 20:51:26

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave_at_[hidden]] 
[snip]
> >> > 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.
> 
> Correct.  IANAL either.  It just seemed to me that we wouldn't have
> to provide the explicit exception below unless it could be
> interpreted that binaries were derivative.

Ah - binaries - ok - that makes sense.

> 
> >> > 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):
> >
> > [let me just re-insert some additioanl context here]
> > ! The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement
> > ! ...
> > ! must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole 
> or in part,
> > and
> >> 
> >> 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.
> >
> > I took this to mean that nobody can delete/change the 
> copyright/license
> > in the sources if they copy or produce a derivative work 
> but that there
> > is no need to include the license in a binary distribution. 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > It did not occur to me that leaving the license in place somehow
> > forms a viral attachment to other source in a source distribution.
> 
> I don't know what you mean.

My misunderstanding about what was the derived work in your "yes" above.
The rest of my post was based on that misunderstanding.

[snip]

> > Whatever the conclusion I think this needs to be in the FAQ.
> 
> Patches welcomed

I'm happy to provide a patch once I'm reasonably sure I understand the
license. I'm assuming an email discussion will be more productive than
patches in the meantime. I have one more question that I have a proposed
FAQ answer for, but my "answer" is based purely on what I think it
should be, not an understanding of the law. The point that confuses me
is:

If a program uses boost, the binary distro doesn't need to contain the
license, but it is a derivative work. As I understand it, a derivative
work contains exclusive rights both the "preexisting material" author
and "contributed material" author. This in turn means there must be some
form of agreement as to how the derivative work can be distributed. The
boost license seems to deal with that by saying that the derivative work
must contain the boost license wording unless the derivative work is
object code. That seems to result in a reasonably clear rule for
derivative works that are not object code. What I'm not sure on is
whether the grant to allow derivative works, combined with permission to
omit the license wording from object code, gives the "contributing
author" the right to distribute the object code "derived work" under any
terms/license that author choses?

Here is my proposed "patch" in a form suitable for forwarding to lawyers
for "testing".

Q: Does #include <boost/any_old_header.hpp> make the including file a
derived work?

A: No. That is use, but not derivation. But if instead of #include, you
pasted 
in a legally significant portion of <boost/any_old_header.hpp> , that
would 
make your program a derived work. Note that if you pasted in code from 
several sources, your code might become a derived work of each of those 
sources. 

Source - Beman Dawes in
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/1686928

Q: Is the object file produced by compiling a source file which contains
#include <boost/any_old_header.hpp> a derived work?

A: Yes. However, the license explicitly grants the right to distribute
object code derivative
works (the result of compiling source which includes boost files)
without the boost license.

Q: So I can apply my own choice of license terms to the object code?

A: Yes.

Is this legally and "intently" correct?

Regards
Darryl Green.

##########################################################################
This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only.  If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
then delete it.  If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, 
disclose or distribute this e-mail without the author's prior permission.  
We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software 
viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any 
attachment to this message.  We cannot accept liability for any loss or 
damage caused by software viruses.

##########################################################################