Re: [Boost-users] derivative work

From: Ruediger Berlich (ruediger.berlich_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-13 12:46:40

Dear Peter,

my question evolves from the following excerpt from the BSL:

"Permission is hereby granted [...] to prepare derivative works [...]
subject to the following: The copyright notices in the Software and this
entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and
the following disclaimer, must be included [...] (in) all derivative works
of the Software, [...]".

My interpretation of this is the following (and it is quite possible that to
an English native speaker accustomed to legal speach this is an entirely
stupid view ;-)

If the definition of "derivative works" includes activities commonly
understood as "usage" then, as per the above excerpt, basically any person
just using Boost in an application has to
a) include a copyright notice for the corresponding Boost library's author
in the code (despite the fact that no modifications of that library's code
took place)
b) include the Boost license in his/her code.

It would seem to me that this way a person who is just using Boost would
sign away substantial rights in his/her own code. This in itself is not a
bad thing, as long as the person using the code clearly knows that.

So this is the point I'm trying to understand. If I simply _use_ Boost
software in my code, which obligations do I have ?

Please note that for me the term "usage" covers things like linking,
#include'ing headers, instantiating Boost classes and benefitting from
their services, deriving classes from Boost classes, overriding virtual
functions in such derived classes, etc. .  It does **not** cover
modification of the original code, copying parts of the code into my own
application (with the obvious exception of #include statements, #defines,
etc).

A short search on the Web revealed different interpretations of the
term "derived work". The two fractions seem to be the FSF and the two URLs
in my last posting (Wikipedia + Lawrence Rosen's page). Please also note
that Lawrence Rosen says on his page about "derivative works": "This is a
complex topic that courts and lawyers disagree about".

But even if the legal meaning of "derivative works" *is* indeed well
understood in US jurisdiction: Copyright laws differ in different
countries. And Boost has both contributors and users from around the world.
Plus, judging from the comments I've read on the Web, people who are not
from the legal profession have difficulties with the phrase "derivative
work".

Hence, a section in the FAQ about the intention behind the BSL and how the
initiators understood the term "derivative works" might help Boost get
accepted by many more people.

Have a nice evening,
Ruediger

Peter Dimov wrote:

> Ruediger Berlich wrote:
> 
>> Here are two links which might shed some light on the meaning of
>> "derivative work":
>>
>> http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm (Lawrence Rosen's page on derivative
>> work).
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work (see particularly at the
>> end of the article)
> 
> Why does the definition of "Derivative Work" matter to you (in the context
> of the BSL)?