Hi I subscribed to this list to find out if I can publish one program containig "Boost Filesystem Library" under the GPL2. I saw that Boost license is even more flexible than the GPL2 but I'm not sure if I can release a program containing Boost with GPL2... anybody knows? where should I ask to answer my question? my case is that I'm developping a stand-alone console program which I want to integrate in other GPL licensed projects of web developpment like quanta.sourceforge.net or screem.sourceforge.net. I don't mind about modifying the licene of my program to adapt it to the special license of "Boost Filesystem Library" but I think it's inaffordable to modify all licenses of big projects like quanta or screem... so I'm a little bit confused. any idea? thanks in advance!
MarC
As long as you follow (and don't change) the licensing terms of the boost::filesystem code, you're free to do with it whatever you like. On the other hand, the GPL2 license may prevent you from doing certain things. To find out whether it's OK from the GPL2 perspective to integrate boost::filesystem in your application under its own licensing terms, you'll probably have to ask GPL2 experts (or a lawyer). -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 09:04:47AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
I asked about this recently on the GPL list. Someone there said his *unofficial* reaction was that the licenses looked compatible. He also said he'd bring the Boost license to the attention of whoever makes official pronouncements. I then noticed that GPL includes a clause to the effect that there can be no additional restrictions. It seems to me distributing and complying the Boost license is an additional restriction, even though the requirements of the Boost license are quite similar to those of GPL (e.g., acknowledgement of copyrights). I didn't get any answer on that one. It may be that if your code is GPL you need to add a clause explicitly permitting use with Boost. But if you have someone else's GPL code, you can't do that for them.... I certainly would like a definitive answer to this question, particularly if the answer is "yes." Right now I'm using working combining stuff under both licenses, but I wouldn't feel safe redistributing it.
Ross Boylan
:-) but the boost license requirements are less restrictive. Well, IANAL, so don't take my word for anything, but maybe you should find out if "additional restrictions" means on the GPL'd software, or on any software linked/distributed with it.
I guess you need a lawyer :( -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Hi, I had a Java library that used other packages under different licenses. I used MIT license for my code and just kept the original licenses for 3rd party code. I had a licenses folder in the distribution directory structure and put there the several licenses with filenames like jakarta1.0.2.license, bcel.license, etc. I agree that's not the most user friendly solution (for the library user it is easier to deal with one license then several) but kept things simple, well, for me at least. ;) Best regards, Mauricio Gomes Pensar Digital On Aug 23, 2004, at 9:16 AM, MarC wrote:
participants (4)
-
David Abrahams -
MarC -
Mauricio Gomes -
Ross Boylan