Re: [Boost-users] Boost License Question

From: Glenn Thorne (gathorne_NOSPAM_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-03 08:45:45

"Sebastian Redl" <sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:4406A01D.6020206_at_getdesigned.at...
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>
>>These conversations always under the AINAL disclaimer...
>>
>>Glenn Thorne wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It seems to me that since derivative works must be subject to the 
>>>license,
>>>any code I link with the Boost libraries would also be subject to the 
>>>Boost
>>>license.  Am I reading this correctly or is there a different
>>>interpretation?
>>>
>>
>>That isn't a derivative work of Boost.
>>
> Yes, it is, at least as far as the GPL's understanding of derivative
> work goes. However, Glenn misunderstood the license. It doesn't require
> that your derivative work is subject to the license, merely that it
> includes a copy of the license text with the source code should you
> choose to provide that, solely for the purpose of information about the
> Boost part of the program.
>
> The license is in fact so permissive that your own modifications to the
> Boost code itself wouldn't have to be under the Boost license. (Though
> the original code parts would have to be, so that's useless in practice..)
>
> Sebastian Redl

I was concerned about the definition of the term "derivative work" too.  But 
the point about including the license instead of being subject to makes it a 
moot point.

Thanks!