Re: [Boost-users] derivative work

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-12 04:36:48

Ruediger Berlich wrote:
> But that is exactly where clarification is needed. My understanding
> of the phrase "derivative works" differs from yours, and I suspect
> that this will be the case for many people.

Me too: I would read as "modification of", not "use of".

> I understand that it is an explicit goal of Boost developers to allow
> an almost entirely free (in the sense of free speech and free beer)
> usage of the library, INCLUDING commercial use.

Yes, that was the motivation behind the licence.

> If, by simply using (or worse: deriving classes from) components of
> Boost the authors (who are possibly part of a company) would give
> away rights in their or their companies' code, very few commercial
> entities would ever produce software intended for public consumption,
> based on Boost.
>
> It is my understanding that this is one of the most central points
> where the GPL and the Boost Software License differ. The GPL
> automatically extends to code based on GPL'ed code. It is "viral" (I
> do not like that phrase), no matter whether the original, GPL'ed code
> itself was modified or not. The Boost Software License - at least
> this is how I understand it - is _not_ viral.

Exactly: that at least was the intent of the licence: of course IANAL, but 
it was drafted by one at least.

John.