Documentation copyright in Boost
John Maddock's prodding with regard to copyright notices in Boost's sources got me thinking about the copyright notices in its documentation. Currently, some docs have a copyright notice using the Boost Software License, some have a permissive license other than the BSL, and some just say "Copyright (c) DATE AUTHOR". I haven't done a detailed survey; that observation is just based on a random browsing of the Boost docs. I generally believe in using the same copyright license for the documentation as the one used for the software, at least in the context of Free/Open Source Software. That may or may not be entirely appropriate considering the BSL's particular language concerning compiled software. Has this issue been raised in the past? Was there a consensus? If not, what do you think about it, now? Thanks, Jonathan Brandmeyer
Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote:
John Maddock's prodding with regard to copyright notices in Boost's sources got me thinking about the copyright notices in its documentation.
Currently, some docs have a copyright notice using the Boost Software License, some have a permissive license other than the BSL, and some just say "Copyright (c) DATE AUTHOR". I haven't done a detailed survey; that observation is just based on a random browsing of the Boost docs.
For a less random survey see: http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/license_report.html Boost Inspection Report
I generally believe in using the same copyright license for the documentation as the one used for the software, at least in the context of Free/Open Source Software. That may or may not be entirely appropriate considering the BSL's particular language concerning compiled software.
As far a I understand the BSL, documentation is explicitly included in the "Software" (i.e. a library). So it follows that the same license is supposed to be applied to documentation. As for compiled software... even though it is possible to "compile" documentation, that is do some processing and turn into something like PDF of CHTML. But for documentation that only changes the presentation and is covered by the "reproduce, display, distribute" grant not the compile grant (IANAL). -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 12:35, Rene Rivera wrote:
Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote:
John Maddock's prodding with regard to copyright notices in Boost's sources got me thinking about the copyright notices in its documentation.
Currently, some docs have a copyright notice using the Boost Software License, some have a permissive license other than the BSL, and some just say "Copyright (c) DATE AUTHOR". I haven't done a detailed survey; that observation is just based on a random browsing of the Boost docs.
For a less random survey see:
http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/license_report.html Boost Inspection Report
So it is on the radar. Excellent!
I generally believe in using the same copyright license for the documentation as the one used for the software, at least in the context of Free/Open Source Software. That may or may not be entirely appropriate considering the BSL's particular language concerning compiled software.
As far a I understand the BSL, documentation is explicitly included in the "Software" (i.e. a library). So it follows that the same license is supposed to be applied to documentation.
Ah, yes. Hidden in plain sight. Thanks, -Jonathan
participants (2)
-
Jonathan Brandmeyer -
Rene Rivera