On 12/08/16 10:16, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
I encountered some projects that have copied files from boost and replaced the copyright and license notice by their own. Other projects have added their own license (for isntance MIT, LGPL ...) beside the Boost license notice in the copied files - does this mean that the code is dual licensed now?.
How does the boost community deal with this?
I'm not a lawyer, but here's my understanding. BSL explicitly prohibits removal of the license text from the files. This means the particular headers taken from Boost must be licensed under BSL. I think the projects that remove the license are doing it illegally. This does not prohibit derivative works from being licensed under other terms, including the licenses you mentioned, which AFAIK are compatible with the BSL. This does not require to add the other license to the Boost headers, in addition to BSL, and I think doing so is also wrong because it changes the licensing terms on the particular Boost headers without the authors' consent. I don't know how to deal with this but I think a kind request to stop that practice to the violating projects is a good starting point.