RE: [Boost-users] Copyright notice in redistributed object files

From: Jim.Hyslop (Jim.Hyslop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-21 08:36:40

First: I am not a lawyer. If you want competent legal advice, consult a
lawyer. What follows is my lay opinion, which may or may not be correct or
valid in your legal jurisdiction.

Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
> I understand that the license states that I allowed to "use,
> reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit" Boost software
> without restriction, provided that the software is in object form.
> However, I still have a question about other responsibilities I might
> have in redistributing a work of mine that incorporates Boost in
> object form.  In particular, I am interested in whether I have to
> mention "Boost" or the authors' names at all anywhere in my software
> or the supporting documentation.
My opinion: If the license doesn't require it, you don't have to do it. If
the license doesn't forbid it, then you can do it. Whatever "it" means in
the appropriate context.

> As an example, in distributed object code without source, do I need to
> state a copyright notice including the Boost copyright holder's names
> in the same place I put my ordinary copyright, if any?  If my
> derivative work is (other than Boost) released into the public domain
> (for example, I explicitly disclaim all copyright interest), do I
> still need to mention that Boost copyright holders have copyrighted
> portions of the object code?
You cannot place into public domain rights to something that you do not own.
Since you do not own the rights to the Boost library, you cannot place it in
the public domain. Your statement placing the code in the public domain
should probably explicitly state _which_ code you are giving away.

If your code is derived from Boost, i.e. you have taken the Boost code and
modified it, then I think whether or not you can put it in the public domain
will depend on the extent of your modifications.

> Also, am I required to mention that the Boost portions of the
> distributed objects have no warranty?  For example, if I include
> boost_regex.dll, am I required to state that that Boost copyright
> holders provide no warranty?
Hmmm... that's a trickier one. This one you might want to consult a lawyer
about, because it gets into areas such as liability, consumer protection
laws, etc. which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

> Outside of my obligations under the Boost license, is there any other
> particular reason I might acknowledge Boost or display their 
> copyright?
Goodwill?

> (I am asking this because several popular proprietary programs seem to
> attempt to include a copyright notice for every rights-holder's code
> included in their software, even where the licenses covering the code
> does not seem to obligate the program distributor to include them.)
<rant>
I've seen this, and I don't agree with it. Consider what would happen if the
automobile industry started doing this kind of thing. Your owner's manual
would swell to several thousand pages long, with most of it being
acknowledgements:

Portions of this automobile were manufactured by Bolts-R-Us Inc.
Portions of this automobile were assembled using Very Tough Tools(TM).
blah blah blah.

When you get down to it, end users don't care what makes up the program, as
long as it works. For _their_ definition of "works".
</rant>

-- 
Jim Hyslop
Senior Software Designer
Leitch Technology International Inc. (http://www.leitch.com)
Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com/experts)