A possible addition to the boost license FAQ
Hi, a question I get frequently asked is "Can I dual-license a project or a library under the GPL and the Boost Software License?". I suppose I know the answer, but I thought some of you, perhaps Dave or Beman, might have reliable wording from Devin Smith or other lawyers who participated to the license development. -- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
If you can dual-license with boost software license and a payed one for a organization that may want to pay, then how couldnt you dual-license on gpl and boost license? On 8/5/06, Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
a question I get frequently asked is "Can I dual-license a project or a library under the GPL and the Boost Software License?". I suppose I know the answer, but I thought some of you, perhaps Dave or Beman, might have reliable wording from Devin Smith or other lawyers who participated to the license development.
-- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida
Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
If you can dual-license with boost software license and a payed one for a organization that may want to pay, then how couldnt you dual-license on gpl and boost license?
I think you can dual-license GPL with _more_ restrictive licenses, Such licensing simply adds the freedoms of the GPL (GNU world) to the software. See e.g. http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/licensingoverview I don't think you can dual license GPL with _less_ restrictive licenses, e.g. the Boost license. Those licenses add too much freedom. Freedom to use and hide is not compatible with the GPL. That said, you can use Boost Software Licensed software in a GPL project. That is what the GPL compatibility pages is about: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses These pages does not suggest that dual licensing is possible. Just that dependencies or even direct use of software licensed under Boost Software License within a project licensed with GPL is possible without breaking the GPL. I.e. you should never see the two licenses together on the same artifact (FSF view). Boost Software License has no restriction affecting such dual licensing, the issue is with the GPL copyleft restrictions. Q: Can I use software licensed with the Boost Software License in my GPL licensed project? A: Yes, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses Q: Can I dual-license my software under both the GPL and the Boost Software License? A: The Boost Software License allow this, but not the GPL. This is not allowed due to the copyleft restrictions in the GPL. See: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/#WhatIsCopyleft. Specifically, the problem is with the GPL requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. The Boost Software License allow the licensee to make non-free modified and extended versions of the program. My understanding anyway! I am no legal expert but think I have this one right, at least until somebody correct me ;-) Bjørn
Bjørn Roald wrote:
Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
If you can dual-license with boost software license and a payed one for a organization that may want to pay, then how couldnt you dual-license on gpl and boost license?
I think you can dual-license GPL with _more_ restrictive licenses, Such licensing simply adds the freedoms of the GPL (GNU world) to the software. See e.g.
If you are the copyright holder then you can license your stuff in any way you like. Nobody can restrict your rights as a copyright holder. If you are free to user other software (Boost) in basically any way you like (BSL), then you're of course free to relicense it under a single or dual license and together with your additional code or not, even if the additional license imposes more restrictions on the user.
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/licensingoverview
I don't think you can dual license GPL with _less_ restrictive licenses, e.g. the Boost license. Those licenses add too much freedom. Freedom to use and hide is not compatible with the GPL. That said, you can use Boost Software Licensed software in a GPL project. That is what the GPL compatibility pages is about:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
These pages does not suggest that dual licensing is possible. Just that dependencies or even direct use of software licensed under Boost Software License within a project licensed with GPL is possible without breaking the GPL. I.e. you should never see the two licenses together on the same artifact (FSF view).
Boost Software License has no restriction affecting such dual licensing, the issue is with the GPL copyleft restrictions.
Q: Can I use software licensed with the Boost Software License in my GPL licensed project? A: Yes, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
Q: Can I dual-license my software under both the GPL and the Boost Software License? A: The Boost Software License allow this, but not the GPL. This is not allowed due to the copyleft restrictions in the GPL. See: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/#WhatIsCopyleft. Specifically, the problem is with the GPL requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. The Boost Software License allow the licensee to make non-free modified and extended versions of the program.
To my understanding, all this refers to publishing formerly GPLed code (Qt) under BSL. Since GPL tries to be quite restrictive you're not free to republish under BSL. The OP's problem was the other way round, though. IANAL-ly yours, m Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Martin Wille skrev:
Bjørn Roald wrote:
Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
If you can dual-license with boost software license and a payed one for a organization that may want to pay, then how couldnt you dual-license on gpl and boost license?
I think you can dual-license GPL with _more_ restrictive licenses, Such licensing simply adds the freedoms of the GPL (GNU world) to the software. See e.g.
If you are the copyright holder then you can license your stuff in any way you like. Nobody can restrict your rights as a copyright holder.
agreed
If you are free to user other software (Boost) in basically any way you like (BSL), then you're of course free to relicense it under a single or dual license and together with your additional code or not, even if the additional license imposes more restrictions on the user.
From the Boost Software License point of view, this is OK -- Yes.
Q: Can I dual-license my software under both the GPL and the Boost Software License? A: The Boost Software License allow this, but not the GPL. This is not allowed due to the copyleft restrictions in the GPL. See: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/#WhatIsCopyleft. Specifically, the problem is with the GPL requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. The Boost Software License allow the licensee to make non-free modified and extended versions of the program.
To my understanding, all this refers to publishing formerly GPLed code (Qt) under BSL. Since GPL tries to be quite restrictive you're not free to republish under BSL.
True (except from the Qt part??). It was written in the sense of attempting to retaining the copyleft restrictions of the GPL, which the Boost FAQ does not need to be concerned with. These GPL restrictions have a purpose which many see as a freedom to use, not a restriction. It all depend on your point of view. Anyway, the the copyright owner is probably entitled to do as he/she wishes. If it make sense is an entirely different question. From the GPL perspective a dual-license with BSL will effectively brake the "rights" promised by the GPL copyleft-clauses.
The OP's problem was the other way round, though.
maybe. --- Bjørn
Le lundi 07 août 2006 à 08:24 +0200, Bjørn Roald a écrit :
I don't think you can dual license GPL with _less_ restrictive licenses, e.g. the Boost license. Those licenses add too much freedom. Freedom to use and hide is not compatible with the GPL. That said, you can use Boost Software Licensed software in a GPL project. That is what the GPL compatibility pages is about:
[...]
Q: Can I dual-license my software under both the GPL and the Boost Software License? A: The Boost Software License allow this, but not the GPL. This is not allowed due to the copyleft restrictions in the GPL. See: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/#WhatIsCopyleft. Specifically, the problem is with the GPL requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. The Boost Software License allow the licensee to make non-free modified and extended versions of the program.
I don't agree with this interpretation. When you multi-license a "software", the "user" is not bound by all the licenses at once. In particular, breaking one of the licenses does not simultaneously break all the other licenses. As a consequence, if the user is allowed to "use" the software under the terms of the GPL and if she is also allowed to use it under the terms of the Boost license, she can decide that the only the Boost license applies and then she can use the software in strict accordance with this license. Best regards, Guillaume
Guillaume Melquiond skrev:
Le lundi 07 août 2006 à 08:24 +0200, Bjørn Roald a écrit :
I don't think you can dual license GPL with _less_ restrictive licenses, e.g. the Boost license. Those licenses add too much freedom. Freedom to use and hide is not compatible with the GPL. That said, you can use Boost Software Licensed software in a GPL project. That is what the GPL compatibility pages is about:
[...]
Q: Can I dual-license my software under both the GPL and the Boost Software License? A: The Boost Software License allow this, but not the GPL. This is not allowed due to the copyleft restrictions in the GPL. See: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/#WhatIsCopyleft. Specifically, the problem is with the GPL requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. The Boost Software License allow the licensee to make non-free modified and extended versions of the program.
I don't agree with this interpretation. When you multi-license a "software", the "user" is not bound by all the licenses at once.
In particular, breaking one of the licenses does not simultaneously break all the other licenses. Again from the user perspective, this is true. But it kind of proves my
The user is not, agreed. This was not advice to the user. point, which is that if you as the copyright holder dual-license under GPL and BSL you break the intent of the GPL license in such a way that the copyleft restrictions (or rights) that the license provides is no longer guarantied. Hence the correct advice may be that you may do it, but it is unlikely to make any sense. Since BSL licensed software is compatible with use in GPL projects it make more sence to use BSL only if you do not require the copyleft or other restrictions in GPL which you lift by adding the BSL license. On important point here is that what can be interpreted as restrictions in the GPL really are carefully crafted wording to provide "freedom" to the GNU society . Hence effectively lifting them with a dual license, is breaking the intent of the GPL. I do not think such practice will be endorsed by the FSF. That does not mean that you as a copyright holder break any laws. Those are different issues.
As a consequence, if the user is allowed to "use" the software under the terms of the GPL and if she is also allowed to use it under the terms of the Boost license, she can decide that the only the Boost license applies and then she can use the software in strict accordance with this license.
Yes, that make sense. --- best regards Bjørn
On 8/5/06, Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> wrote:
a question I get frequently asked is "Can I dual-license a project or a library under the GPL and the Boost Software License?"
The BSL is compatible with the GPL--the FSF has a page saying so--so anything covered by the BSL can be used in a GPLed project. As for legality, a license to one party on one set of terms does not prohibit the copyright holder from licensing the works in question under separate terms. (Though IANAL, of course.) ~ Scott McMurray
I guess the variety of replies of this thread speaks for itself about the advisability to add some dual-licensing item to the FAQ :-) OTOH, that could be just a question that *I* get frequently asked. FWIW, I would certainly dual-license some contributions such as TR1 implementations, for instance, so that the guys of libstdc++, to cite an example, would not have to re-implement them from scratch. PS: to address some of the issues raised in the thread, I'm specifically referring to something like "this is licensed under (a) or (b), *at your option*". -- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
On 8/7/06, Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> wrote:
I guess the variety of replies of this thread speaks for itself about the advisability to add some dual-licensing item to the FAQ :-)
OTOH, that could be just a question that *I* get frequently asked. FWIW, I would certainly dual-license some contributions such as TR1 implementations, for instance, so that the guys of libstdc++, to cite an example, would not have to re-implement them from scratch.
As the Boost licence is compatible with the GPL (according to the FSF), wouldn't the guys of the libstdc++ be able to just include the TR1 stuff? The real problem is that to include code in an FSF project you need to assign copyright to the FSF, and i guess this is different from dual licensing, i.e. the FSF then would own the copyright. I do not know if they would be the sole owner of the original author would retain (shared) ownership. IANAL of course. PS: to address some of the issues raised in the thread, I'm
specifically referring to something like "this is licensed under (a) or (b), *at your option*".
-- Giovanni P. Deretta
Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
On 8/7/06, Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> wrote:
I guess the variety of replies of this thread speaks for itself about the advisability to add some dual-licensing item to the FAQ :-)
OTOH, that could be just a question that *I* get frequently asked. FWIW, I would certainly dual-license some contributions such as TR1 implementations, for instance, so that the guys of libstdc++, to cite an example, would not have to re-implement them from scratch.
As the Boost licence is compatible with the GPL (according to the FSF), wouldn't the guys of the libstdc++ be able to just include the TR1 stuff? The real problem is that to include code in an FSF project you need to assign copyright to the FSF, and i guess this is different from dual licensing, i.e. the FSF then would own the copyright. I do not know if they would be the sole owner of the original author would retain (shared) ownership. IANAL of course.
You can't assign the copyright on your works to someone else in some countries. Likewise, you can't relinquish copyright on your work in those countries (so "putting in public domain" is not possible). You can transfer the "right of use" in those countries. Requiring transfering of copyright to the FSF looks like a weird requirement to me, given that this would exclude many people from contributing. IANAL-ly yours, m Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
On 8/7/06, Martin Wille <mw8329@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On 8/7/06, Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> wrote:
I guess the variety of replies of this thread speaks for itself about the advisability to add some dual-licensing item to the FAQ :-)
OTOH, that could be just a question that *I* get frequently asked. FWIW, I would certainly dual-license some contributions such as TR1 implementations, for instance, so that the guys of libstdc++, to cite an example, would not have to re-implement them from scratch.
As the Boost licence is compatible with the GPL (according to the FSF), wouldn't the guys of the libstdc++ be able to just include the TR1 stuff? The real problem is that to include code in an FSF project you need to assign copyright to the FSF, and i guess this is different from dual licensing, i.e. the FSF then would own the copyright. I do not know if
Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote: they
would be the sole owner of the original author would retain (shared) ownership. IANAL of course.
You can't assign the copyright on your works to someone else in some countries. Likewise, you can't relinquish copyright on your work in those countries (so "putting in public domain" is not possible). You can transfer the "right of use" in those countries.
Requiring transfering of copyright to the FSF looks like a weird requirement to me, given that this would exclude many people from contributing.
While you can't relinquish moral rights, you can certainly transfer economics righs. This is true everywere in the UE AFAIK. For example if you are employed in a company it is likely that the company owns you intelectual work. While you have the moral right to be recognized as the author of your work, the company owns the exclusive right to it exploit it commercially. -- Giovanni P. Deretta
Gennaro Prota wrote:
Hi,
a question I get frequently asked is "Can I dual-license a project or a library under the GPL and the Boost Software License?".
One doesn't need to be a lawyer to grok that the BSL allows sublicensing (not relicensing in GNUtian sense; or rather lack of any sense) under different terms for machine-executable object code only. Derivative works in source code form fall under the BSL and only the BSL. As for derivative works, I suggest you take a look at http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf ----- PRELIMINARY DRAFT 2006/4/3 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Accepted for Publication in Issue 21:4 (Fall 2006) of the BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL DANGEROUS LIAISONS SOFTWARE COMBINATIONS AS DERIVATIVE WORKS? Distribution, Installation and Execution of Linked Programs under Copyright Law, Commercial Licenses and the GPL By Lothar Determann Prof. Dr. Lothar Determann teaches courses on Computer and Internet law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of San Francisco School of Law and Freie Universität Berlin (www.lothar.determann.name) and practices law as a partner in the international technology practice group of Baker ? McKenzie LLP, San Francisco/Palo Alto office (www.bakernet.com). The author is grateful for assistance from his students, in particular Tal Lavian, Principal Scientist at Nortel Labs (valuable comments from computer science perspective), Steven B. Toeniskoetter, Lars F. Brauer, and Neda Shabahang (legal research and footnote editing). ----- First sale, copyright misuse and all that (I don't particularly agree with all of his analysis and characterization of *governing* [he seems to highlight some bad/highly-criticized/overturned... probably poor legal research by Neda) caselaw on infringing derivatives, but his conclusions and summaries are mostly OK... except that regarding antitrust he seems to be totally unaware of Wallace). Nice to see real law professors and practitioners catching up. :-) regards, alexander. -- http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace-case-FAQ-for-dummies-v1.9.txt
participants (8)
-
Alexander Terekhov -
Bjørn Roald -
Felipe Magno de Almeida -
Gennaro Prota -
Giovanni Piero Deretta -
Guillaume Melquiond -
Martin Wille -
me22