Powell, Gary wrote
#1 I'd prefer that any software I contribute to boost remain "free", as in I don't want someone to add 20 lines of code to a library and then sell it. You can sell the compiled machine code but not the original or the modified source other than to cover duplication and distribution costs.
Why not? Who cares?
#2 I have worked for a overly restrictive employer who was paranoid that anything anyone might do on their own time might be owned by the employee and not the employee. It would be extremely helpful if the license states clearly that derivatives cannot be owned.
Again: why not? As long as the status of the original is unchanged why should anyone care?
I'm all for a company like "Boost Consulting", I think they add plenty of value to the boost community and give back way more than they take from the free software.
However greedy companies have been known to take free software, modify it and not return it to the public domain.
Again so what? If this is such a concern, don't contribute it - just sell it yourself.
There of course is no time limit and no way to prevent this from happening but it would be better if the copyright was a copy left.
Nothing wrong with copy left. Its different, but not necessarily better.
Also all that bit about the liability disclaimers, forget it, you can be sued for anything, at anytime, not withstanding the claim about the liability, it might as well not be there for all the good it will do us. On the other hand it does give us a leg up in the event of a lawsuit, "We claimed it was worthless your honor."
With such little faith in the legal system, why are you even concerned About the license at all?
Also one should be able to write a book about boost, use part of the documentation without a heap of trouble. But a bound reprint of the documentation is owned by????
Hmmm - a good question. Robert Ramey