I agree that we should get the license page corrected. IMO we need to note and explain any exceptions.
I agree that notes explaining exceptions would be helpful. boost.org/users/license.html says "all libraries comply with the Boost License requirements." The requirements section on that page includes the point "Must not require that the license appear with executables or other binary uses of the library." Doesn't the the following file contradict this? http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/boost/math/common_factor_rt.hpp // Boost common_factor_rt.hpp header file ----------------------------------// // (C) Copyright Daryle Walker and Paul Moore 2001-2002. Permission to copy, // use, modify, sell and distribute this software is granted provided this // copyright notice appears in all copies. This software is provided "as is" // without express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to its suitability // for any purpose. // boostinspect:nolicense (don't complain about the lack of a Boost license) // (Paul Moore hasn't been in contact for years, so there's no way to change the // license.) I'm not a lawyer, but there is no explicit exception for executables or binary uses of the library, so I would assume this means that this notice must appear with executables -- doesn't this contradict the license.html page? In order to use Boost at a company that has formal policies on open source software use and actually reviews the license details of open source packages, stuff like this is a deal breaker, and would force one to either 1) not use Boost or 2) manually remove any files that don't use the Boost Software license. I'm probably going to end up packaging up a subset of Boost with some files removed, which I assume will break things randomly, so isn't ideal.