Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> writes:
Sorry, if this has already been discussed before, but
a) the new license text says:
"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".
IIUC, "the Software" (with a capital 's') includes documentation. Am I right?
Do you consider documentation to be software? I don't. Documentation pages, IIUC, should carry the license too if it is to be licensed under the same terms... but now that I think of it, the wording of the license isn't very appropriate for "documentation only". I guess we'd better ask the lawyer. Devin?
b) IIUC again, the comments we are inserting into source files
// Use, modification and distribution are subject to the // Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
are unnecessarily verbose (and potentially dangerous).
Care to elaborate on why you think it's dangerous?
One could simply say
// Subject to the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See etc. etc.)
I don't think a _file_ can be subject to a license, can it? The file just exists.
That avoids repeating "use, modification and redistribution" which I'm not sure is everything one can do with the Software (I see for instance, that the license talks about "use, *reproduce*, *display*, distribute, execute, and transmit"). Are, legally speaking, "display" and "reproduce" something different from "use"?
c) Suppose one wants to redistribute documentation only (for instance, documentation for one library). Is that allowed? The license seems to say that the docs can only _accompany_ the software (with a lowercase 's').
These are interesting questions; let's see what Devin has to say about them. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com