Re: [Boost-users] [license] Why is the Boost license not an official Open Source

From: brian plummer (bplummer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-27 20:40:45

With the aid of my attorney, I studied this issue very carefully about 2 
years ago.  He came to the conclusion that the Boost License was, and I 
quote "perhaps the most open software license that one could imagine" and he 
went on to say that the only way you could have a more open license would be 
to "have no license at all".  Now, I'm not going to study this issue again, 
but if nothing substantive has changed in the license, I suspect that what 
just stated still holds today.  Now, as always concerning legal matters, 
your mileage may vary...but this is what I found when I carefully looked at 
the issue.

>From: Markus Schöpflin <markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]>
>Reply-To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
>To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
>Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [license] Why is the Boost license not an 
>official Open Source license?
>Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:46:10 +0200
>
>Gennaro Prota schrieb:
> > On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:43:36 -0700 (PDT), Cromwell Enage
> > <sponage_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> IIRC a submittal was sent a while back (maybe almost a
> >> year ago).  No word on whether the submittal even got
> >> to its destination.  However, the Free Software
> >> Foundation does list the BSL as a GPL-compatible
> >> license.  (See
> >> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>.)
> >
> > Which doesn't mean much, to be honest. I'd like to state clearly that
> > boost is *not* free software, just open source (modulo opensource.org
> > confirming that).
>
>Huh, boost is not free software? AFAICT, the license allows all the four
>freedoms. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for a list of
>those. So why should boost not fall into the category of free software?
>
>Markus
>
>_______________________________________________
>Boost-users mailing list
>Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users