[Boost-users] Re: about license

"Darryl Green" writes:

Cross posted from boost-users...

...

-----Original Message----- From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave@boost-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2004 11:43 AM Marleny Rafferty writes:

...

Hi-

I am considering using boost in my applications, but I have a question about the boost license at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt . It says (edited) "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to ... use [and] reproduce ... the Software".

It also says that any derivative works must also have the same license grant.

If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a derivative work?

Yes.

Really? The ligitimacy of this stance seems questionable (but ianal etc). Further I did not see it as being part of the objectives for the license. Quite the opposite in fact.

Correct. IANAL either. It just seemed to me that we wouldn't have to provide the explicit exception below unless it could be interpreted that binaries were derivative.

...

...

If so, does that mean that if I distribute my compiled software, I must allow free of charge use and distribution?

No, the license gives an explicit exemption for compiled code (emphasis mine):

[let me just re-insert some additioanl context here] ! The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement ! ... ! must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and

...

all derivative works of the Software, UNLESS SUCH COPIES OR DERIVATIVE WORKS ARE SOLELY IN THE FORM OF MACHINE-EXECUTABLE OBJECT CODE GENERATED BY A SOURCE LANGUAGE PROCESSOR.

I took this to mean that nobody can delete/change the copyright/license in the sources if they copy or produce a derivative work but that there is no need to include the license in a binary distribution.

Correct.

It did not occur to me that leaving the license in place somehow forms a viral attachment to other source in a source distribution.

I don't know what you mean.

It potentially makes this license incompatible with the intent of other (open and closed) source licenses eg.

I think we just have different non-lawyerly interpretations of the meaning and consequences of "derivative". It amounts to the same thing either way.

// some_gpled_source_file.cpp // this file is distributed under the gpl

// changed some stuff so we use boost libs #include // oops - now it is some boost/gpl hybrid??????

I thought avoiding this sort of thing was precisely why the boost license was developed. I also thought this interpretation of "derived work" was somewhat contentious anyway.

In a commercial context, this interpretation appears to make this license hopeless - anyone obtaining a copy of source code which uses boost (which you appear to be claiming is automatically a derivative work), appears to be free to do what they like with it. It is hardly reasonable that this occur if a company distributes source code with some particular intent/license for its use. That is even without considering the issue of copies obtained without the company/authors permission, whether the copy was obtained accidentally or criminally, and then redistributed. I'm keen to stop people copying my commercial executables, but I'm a lot more keen to stop them running off with the source code!

A bit of digging through the archives finds

http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/1686928

Which seems to explain why I thought the intent was what I understood it to be.

It was.

Whatever the conclusion I think this needs to be in the FAQ.

Patches welcomed -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com