boost.org/users/license.html page out of date and misleading?
http://www.boost.org/users/license.html says "Currently, some Boost libraries have their own licenses." Is this correct in stating that some Boost libraries don't use the Boost Software License? If so, what is an example of a Boost library that does not use the Boost Software License? Is there a definitive list of which libraries don't use the Boost Software License? I discussed this on the #boost irc channel today, and it was suggested that the license.html page is out of date, and that all of the Boost libraries have already been updated to use the Boost Software License. If this is indeed the case, can we please update the license.html page? Thanks
At least some files in the normal Boost download don't use the Boost Software License. Here is a file with the Apache License: http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/libs/numeric/ublas/doc/js/jquery.toc-gw... And here is a file with the GNU Public License: http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/tools/build/v2/engine/jamgram.h Is there a Boost download that only includes files with the Boost Software License (e.g. without the tools and libs/*/doc directories)? I'm trying to convince some people I work with that Boost has a corporate friendly license, but it is difficult given the seemingly out of date license.html page and the fact that the normal Boost download (e.g. boost_1_54_0.tar.gz) has files that use copy left licenses. Thanks
This only required to re-*build* the docs - the normal release is *pre-built*, so this doesn't apply.
And here is a file with the GNU Public License:
http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/tools/build/v2/engine/jamgram.h
Is there a Boost download that only includes files with the Boost Software License (e.g. without
I think we are relying on this text in the file. /* As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof as a parser skeleton. Alternatively, if you modify or redistribute the parser skeleton itself, you may (at your option) remove this special exception, which will cause the skeleton and the resulting Bison output files to be licensed under the GNU General Public License without this special exception. This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in version 2.2 of Bison. */ the tools and libs/*/doc directories)?
I'm trying to convince some people I work with that Boost has a corporate friendly license, but it
is
I agree that we should get the license page corrected. IMO we need to note and explain any exceptions. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
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.
participants (2)
-
John DiMatteo -
Paul A. Bristow