"Andrey Semashev via Boost" wrote:
[Standard disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer, and the following is my understanding.]
Likewise.
Boost license (BSL) requires to "be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor." So the copied part is still under the Boost license (and the license must be present in that project in a way that makes it clear what code it applies to).
Makes sense. Since most Boost files don't include the entire license, it probably needs to be included somewhere else along with the source code.
However, the developers of that project can distribute their project as a whole under the GPL, including the parts under the BSL.
That's what I'm reading too. The Free Software Foundation believes the Boost Software License is "compatible" with the GPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#boost There is a definition of "compatible" in the gpl-faq you linked. Another is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility But if they distribute the whole thing saying "this is licensed under the GPL", doesn't that kind of contradict the requirement to include the Boost Software License and the copyright notices? It would feel better to me if they said "this is licensed under the GPL and, in part, other compatible licenses". Regards, Niklas Angare