"Jim.Hyslop" <Jim.Hyslop@Leitch.com> writes:

First: I am not a lawyer. If you want competent legal advice, consult a lawyer. What follows is my lay opinion, which may or may not be correct or valid in your legal jurisdiction.

Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:

...

I understand that the license states that I allowed to "use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit" Boost software without restriction, provided that the software is in object form. However, I still have a question about other responsibilities I might have in redistributing a work of mine that incorporates Boost in object form. In particular, I am interested in whether I have to mention "Boost" or the authors' names at all anywhere in my software or the supporting documentation.

My opinion: If the license doesn't require it, you don't have to do it. If the license doesn't forbid it, then you can do it. Whatever "it" means in the appropriate context.

Correct [IANAL]

...

As an example, in distributed object code without source, do I need to state a copyright notice including the Boost copyright holder's names in the same place I put my ordinary copyright, if any? If my derivative work is (other than Boost) released into the public domain (for example, I explicitly disclaim all copyright interest), do I still need to mention that Boost copyright holders have copyrighted portions of the object code?

You cannot place into public domain rights to something that you do not own. Since you do not own the rights to the Boost library, you cannot place it in the public domain. Your statement placing the code in the public domain should probably explicitly state _which_ code you are giving away.

Correct [IANAL]

If your code is derived from Boost, i.e. you have taken the Boost code and modified it, then I think whether or not you can put it in the public domain will depend on the extent of your modifications.

Though on that point I'm less certain, I'm still pretty sure that's incorrect [IANAL]. Derivative works must carry the Boost license: 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 copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and all derivative works of the Software... and IIUC that prevents putting the code into the public domain.

...

Also, am I required to mention that the Boost portions of the distributed objects have no warranty? For example, if I include boost_regex.dll, am I required to state that that Boost copyright holders provide no warranty?

No [IANAL]

Hmmm... that's a trickier one. This one you might want to consult a lawyer about, because it gets into areas such as liability, consumer protection laws, etc. which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

...

Outside of my obligations under the Boost license, is there any other particular reason I might acknowledge Boost or display their copyright?

Goodwill?

Correct

...

(I am asking this because several popular proprietary programs seem to attempt to include a copyright notice for every rights-holder's code included in their software, even where the licenses covering the code does not seem to obligate the program distributor to include them.)

<rant> I've seen this, and I don't agree with it. Consider what would happen if the automobile industry started doing this kind of thing. Your owner's manual would swell to several thousand pages long, with most of it being acknowledgements:

Portions of this automobile were manufactured by Bolts-R-Us Inc. Portions of this automobile were assembled using Very Tough Tools(TM). blah blah blah.

When you get down to it, end users don't care what makes up the program, as long as it works. For _their_ definition of "works". </rant>

Correct -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com