[Boost-users] Re: about license

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-03 23:18:14

This has been sitting in my "to be dealt with" pile for quite some
time, because I couldn't figure out what to do with it.

"Darryl Green" <Darryl.Green_at_[hidden]> writes:

> I've been trying to educate myself about the law in this area,
> with some help from Alexander Terekhov. I'm not at all convinced
> now that there is any derivative work produced by the compilation
> step

I bet that's open to legal interpretation.

> however this seems to make no difference to the result.

Good.  The intention of the license wording is to say that even if you
consider the compiled code a copy or a derivative work, the
requirement to embed a copy of the license doesn't apply to it.

> It seems the compiled code is a translation of both works,

I guess you mean the boost code and whatever it's compiled along with.
The latter could be nothing: there might only be boost code involved.
Anyway, can you cite something authoritative that gives compiled code
the status of a "translation" and not a "derivative work"?

> agregated (a compilation) in some way then. I think whoever
> produces the compilation can license it however they like,
> subject to permission being granted by the authors of the
> original works to include their work in the compilation.

I think the intent to grant that permission is made sufficiently
clear by the license text, don't you?

> I don't know if this is sufficiently clearly allowed by
> the wording of the boost license, though I think "use"
> must surely allow this for software source libs as there
> is no other way to "use" them.

There are actually lots of ways to use them, but that is certainly *a*
use.

> So the final answer is the same

good.

> but some of the questions and answers in between may be wrong.

I don't know what _that_ means.

> Have you received any feedback from lawyers about this?

What is "this"?  The question of whether compiled code is derivative
or a copy or a translation?  The lawyers didn't bat an eyelash about
it when the wording was drafted.  I'm Bcc'ing them on this message so
they can bat whatever they want.

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