----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Stewart" <robertstewart@comcast.net> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:12 AM Subject: Re: [boost] License of endian and limits in Boost detail On Mar 5, 2013, at 2:29 AM, Philip Bennefall <philip@blastbay.com> wrote:
* Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software * and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and * that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear * in supporting documentation.
This looks to me like it enforces inclusion of the above text in object code distributions,
IANAL, but I read that as only requiring the copyright notice in copies of the source and in the documentation, not in the binaries. Do you mean the end user documentation accompanying binaries (e.g. the documentation of a derivative work)? That is the part I want to avoid. Philip Bennefall ___ Rob _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:49 AM, Philip Bennefall <philip@blastbay.com> wrote:
From: "Rob Stewart" <robertstewart@comcast.net>
On Mar 5, 2013, at 2:29 AM, Philip Bennefall <philip@blastbay.com> wrote:
* Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software * and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and * that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear * in supporting documentation.
This looks to me like it enforces inclusion of the above text in object code distributions,
IANAL, but I read that as only requiring the copyright notice in copies of the source and in the documentation, not in the binaries.
Do you mean the end user documentation accompanying binaries (e.g. the documentation of a derivative work)? That is the part I want to avoid.
That's what I meant, yes. I didn't say it was a good or convenient thing, however. ___ Rob
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Stewart" <robertstewart@comcast.net> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [boost] License of endian and limits in Boost detail On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:49 AM, Philip Bennefall <philip@blastbay.com> wrote:
From: "Rob Stewart" <robertstewart@comcast.net>
On Mar 5, 2013, at 2:29 AM, Philip Bennefall <philip@blastbay.com> wrote:
* Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software * and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and * that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear * in supporting documentation.
This looks to me like it enforces inclusion of the above text in object code distributions,
IANAL, but I read that as only requiring the copyright notice in copies of the source and in the documentation, not in the binaries.
Do you mean the end user documentation accompanying binaries (e.g. the documentation of a derivative work)? That is the part I want to avoid.
That's what I meant, yes. I didn't say it was a good or convenient thing, however. ___ Rob The reason I bring it up is because it goes against the Boost software license, and since a lot of libraries seem to use boost.config and thus this file in some capacity, I am unsure of what parts of Boost I can use without including this extra requirement. it would be nice if the maintainer would look into this. Philip Bennefall _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 06-03-2013 11:48, Philip Bennefall wrote:
The reason I bring it up is because it goes against the Boost software license, and since a lot of libraries seem to use boost.config and thus this file in some capacity, I am unsure of what parts of Boost I can use without including this extra requirement. it would be nice if the maintainer would look into this.
+1 This is serious problem that needs to be fixed. -Thorsten
I also agree. In my company when I tell I use boost they ask for license. I generally direct to BSL. But if they find out these extra conditions, then they may question me. Either it should be fixed or at least mentioned some where. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Thorsten Ottosen < thorsten.ottosen@dezide.com> wrote:
On 06-03-2013 11:48, Philip Bennefall wrote:
The reason I bring it up is because it goes against the Boost software license, and since a lot of libraries seem to use boost.config and thus this file in some capacity, I am unsure of what parts of Boost I can use without including this extra requirement. it would be nice if the maintainer would look into this.
+1
This is serious problem that needs to be fixed.
-Thorsten
______________________________**_________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/** mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost<http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost>
On 06/03/13 13:05, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
On 06-03-2013 11:48, Philip Bennefall wrote:
The reason I bring it up is because it goes against the Boost software license, and since a lot of libraries seem to use boost.config and thus this file in some capacity, I am unsure of what parts of Boost I can use without including this extra requirement. it would be nice if the maintainer would look into this.
+1
This is serious problem that needs to be fixed.
The code is trivial and was substantially changed anyway. Maybe just getting rid of the copyright to SGI is an option then?
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
On 06/03/13 13:05, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
On 06-03-2013 11:48, Philip Bennefall wrote:
The reason I bring it up is because it goes against the Boost software license, and since a lot of libraries seem to use boost.config and thus this file in some capacity, I am unsure of what parts of Boost I can use without including this extra requirement. it would be nice if the maintainer would look into this.
+1
This is serious problem that needs to be fixed.
The code is trivial and was substantially changed anyway. Maybe just getting rid of the copyright to SGI is an option then?
I don't think this is a legal (or fair) solution, however old or modified that code is, unless totally rewritten from scratch. I wonder if we could simply drop detail/limits.hpp (and always rely on compiler-provided numeric limits) and rewrite detail/endian.hpp (so that its functionality is integrated into Boost.Config).
On 6 March 2013 13:07, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if we could simply drop detail/limits.hpp (and always rely on compiler-provided numeric limits)
boost/detail/limits.hpp is almost never used nowadays. It's only included from boost/limits.hpp, using: #ifdef BOOST_NO_LIMITS # include <boost/detail/limits.hpp> #else # include <limits> #endif BOOST_NO_LIMITS is only defined in 'boost/config/stdlib/sgi.hpp'. Does anyone still use that configuration? I suppose it might also be defined in a custom configuration or by a user. It's quite likely that the header is incompatible with other STL implementations anyway. So I suspect it's only effectively used in code that is already subject to the SGI license (i.e. the header is only included when already using the SGI libraries), although I don't know if that makes a difference legally.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel James" <daniel@calamity.org.uk> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [boost] boost.config was Re: License of endian and limits in Boost detail On 6 March 2013 13:07, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if we could simply drop detail/limits.hpp (and always rely on compiler-provided numeric limits)
boost/detail/limits.hpp is almost never used nowadays. It's only included from boost/limits.hpp, using: #ifdef BOOST_NO_LIMITS # include <boost/detail/limits.hpp> #else # include <limits> #endif BOOST_NO_LIMITS is only defined in 'boost/config/stdlib/sgi.hpp'. Does anyone still use that configuration? I suppose it might also be defined in a custom configuration or by a user. It's quite likely that the header is incompatible with other STL implementations anyway. So I suspect it's only effectively used in code that is already subject to the SGI license (i.e. the header is only included when already using the SGI libraries), although I don't know if that makes a difference legally. For my part I want to distribute a small subset of Boost with my program, which I am also placing under the Boost Software license. But if either of these files get included, detail/limits and/or detail/endian, we get this uncertainty as to what really applies legally. If the file is hardly ever used, does it need to be kept if it causes legal ambiguities? Philip Bennefall _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
participants (7)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Daniel James -
Mathias Gaunard -
Philip Bennefall -
Rob Stewart -
Shakti Misra -
Thorsten Ottosen