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)?