----- Original Message ----- From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 11:48 AM Subject: [boost] Re: google going open source
christopher diggins wrote:
I am not a legal expert, but I see no reason one can not add a Boost license to code already licensed under the BSD version 2.0. It just makes for a screenful of disclaimers for every header.
The BSD 2.0 has the advertisement clause even in binary use. The Boost license requires unrestricted binary use.
Are you saying that BSD requires the copyright notice along with executables? If so, I read it differently: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." It seems unreasonable to consider using and compiling a library in an executable as a binary redistribution of a derived work of the library. I do realize the Boost library does contain: "... unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor." Isn't this legal exception just paranoia, or is there actual legal precedent to warrant it? Christopher Diggins Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL) http://www.ootl.org