Sorry, if this has already been discussed before, but a) the new license text says: "The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, must be included in all copies of the Software". IIUC, "the Software" (with a capital 's') includes documentation. Am I right? b) IIUC again, the comments we are inserting into source files // Use, modification and distribution are subject to the // Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) are unnecessarily verbose (and potentially dangerous). One could simply say // Subject to the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See etc. etc.) That avoids repeating "use, modification and redistribution" which I'm not sure is everything one can do with the Software (I see for instance, that the license talks about "use, *reproduce*, *display*, distribute, execute, and transmit"). Are, legally speaking, "display" and "reproduce" something different from "use"? c) Suppose one wants to redistribute documentation only (for instance, documentation for one library). Is that allowed? The license seems to say that the docs can only _accompany_ the software (with a lowercase 's'). Genny.
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> writes:
Sorry, if this has already been discussed before, but
a) the new license text says:
"The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, must be included in all copies of the Software".
IIUC, "the Software" (with a capital 's') includes documentation. Am I right?
Do you consider documentation to be software? I don't. Documentation pages, IIUC, should carry the license too if it is to be licensed under the same terms... but now that I think of it, the wording of the license isn't very appropriate for "documentation only". I guess we'd better ask the lawyer. Devin?
b) IIUC again, the comments we are inserting into source files
// Use, modification and distribution are subject to the // Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
are unnecessarily verbose (and potentially dangerous).
Care to elaborate on why you think it's dangerous?
One could simply say
// Subject to the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See etc. etc.)
I don't think a _file_ can be subject to a license, can it? The file just exists.
That avoids repeating "use, modification and redistribution" which I'm not sure is everything one can do with the Software (I see for instance, that the license talks about "use, *reproduce*, *display*, distribute, execute, and transmit"). Are, legally speaking, "display" and "reproduce" something different from "use"?
c) Suppose one wants to redistribute documentation only (for instance, documentation for one library). Is that allowed? The license seems to say that the docs can only _accompany_ the software (with a lowercase 's').
These are interesting questions; let's see what Devin has to say about them. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:46:53 -0500, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
IIUC, "the Software" (with a capital 's') includes documentation. Am I right?
Do you consider documentation to be software? I don't.
No, I don't consider it software either :) I was asking if *in the text of the license* they used the word "Software", with an uppercase 's', as a shortcut for software + docs. That's because it says: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization obtaining a copy of **the software and accompanying documentation** covered by this license (**the "Software"**)
[...]
b) IIUC again, the comments we are inserting into source files
// Use, modification and distribution are subject to the // Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
are unnecessarily verbose (and potentially dangerous).
Care to elaborate on why you think it's dangerous?
Potentially. I was just asking. My question was: the file says use, modification and distribution are subject to the license. Taken strictly I may interpret that only this three things are subject to the license (not display, for instance). If, from a legal point of view, "display" isn't one of these three things then I can display the software without even reading the license. Just like we do in software I would tend to avoid any repetition between the license text and the source files comments, so that if the lawyers decide to add some other form of usage in the license (imagine if they forgot one! :)) we don't have to add it to the source files as well. Unless it is guaranteed that "use, modification and distribution" cover anything. I know, I'm a bit paranoid ;)
One could simply say
// Subject to the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See etc. etc.)
I don't think a _file_ can be subject to a license, can it? The file just exists.
Hmm... I don't know. It seems to me that the file is the *medium* through which a piece of software is distributed.
[...]
Thanks, Genny.
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:46:53 -0500, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
IIUC, "the Software" (with a capital 's') includes documentation. Am I right?
Do you consider documentation to be software? I don't.
No, I don't consider it software either :) I was asking if *in the text of the license* they used the word "Software", with an uppercase 's', as a shortcut for software + docs. That's because it says:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization obtaining a copy of **the software and accompanying documentation** covered by this license (**the "Software"**)
Now that you remind me, yes, "Software" clearly includes the documentation.
[...]
b) IIUC again, the comments we are inserting into source files
// Use, modification and distribution are subject to the // Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
are unnecessarily verbose (and potentially dangerous).
Care to elaborate on why you think it's dangerous?
Potentially. I was just asking. My question was: the file says use, modification and distribution are subject to the license. Taken strictly I may interpret that only this three things are subject to the license (not display, for instance). If, from a legal point of view, "display" isn't one of these three things then I can display the software without even reading the license.
Good point. I've forgotten whether "display" legally falls under any of the categories "use", "modification", or "distribution". It's amazing how many niggling details can come up in this matter.
Just like we do in software I would tend to avoid any repetition between the license text and the source files comments, so that if the lawyers decide to add some other form of usage in the license (imagine if they forgot one! :)) we don't have to add it to the source files as well. Unless it is guaranteed that "use, modification and distribution" cover anything.
I know, I'm a bit paranoid ;)
Then "they" have you right where they want you ;-)
One could simply say
// Subject to the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See etc. etc.)
I don't think a _file_ can be subject to a license, can it? The file just exists.
Hmm... I don't know. It seems to me that the file is the *medium* through which a piece of software is distributed.
If we were to make a change like that one, I'd say "Licensed under the Boost...", just to avoid any ambiguity. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (2)
-
David Abrahams -
Gennaro Prota