copied boost files in other projects
I encountered some projects that have copied files from boost and replaced the copyright and license notice by their own. Other projects have added their own license (for isntance MIT, LGPL ...) beside the Boost license notice in the copied files - does this mean that the code is dual licensed now?. How does the boost community deal with this? Oliver
On 12/08/16 10:16, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
I encountered some projects that have copied files from boost and replaced the copyright and license notice by their own. Other projects have added their own license (for isntance MIT, LGPL ...) beside the Boost license notice in the copied files - does this mean that the code is dual licensed now?.
How does the boost community deal with this?
I'm not a lawyer, but here's my understanding. BSL explicitly prohibits removal of the license text from the files. This means the particular headers taken from Boost must be licensed under BSL. I think the projects that remove the license are doing it illegally. This does not prohibit derivative works from being licensed under other terms, including the licenses you mentioned, which AFAIK are compatible with the BSL. This does not require to add the other license to the Boost headers, in addition to BSL, and I think doing so is also wrong because it changes the licensing terms on the particular Boost headers without the authors' consent. I don't know how to deal with this but I think a kind request to stop that practice to the violating projects is a good starting point.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/08/16 10:16, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
I encountered some projects that have copied files from boost and replaced the copyright and license notice by their own. Other projects have added their own license (for isntance MIT, LGPL ...) beside the Boost license notice in the copied files - does this mean that the code is dual licensed now?.
Well that is unfortunate given how permissive the BSL is.
How does the boost community deal with this?
I haven't heard of it coming up before. I'm not a lawyer, but here's my understanding.
BSL explicitly prohibits removal of the license text from the files. This means the particular headers taken from Boost must be licensed under BSL. I think the projects that remove the license are doing it illegally.
That is my understanding also. This does not prohibit derivative works from being licensed under other
terms, including the licenses you mentioned, which AFAIK are compatible with the BSL.
Also my understanding.
This does not require to add the other license to the Boost headers, in addition to BSL, and I think doing so is also wrong because it changes the licensing terms on the particular Boost headers without the authors' consent.
Yeah.. Relicensing under different terms is not allowed under international IP rules without explicit permission, AFAIK.
I don't know how to deal with this but I think a kind request to stop that practice to the violating projects is a good starting point.
One option is to contact our SFC legal representative and ask them to look into the offending projects. They can then send authoritative notices to the projects. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
One option is to contact our SFC legal representative and ask them to look into the offending projects. They can then send authoritative notices to the projects.
PS. https://sfconservancy.org/about/contact/ -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Rene Rivera Sent: 08 December 2016 15:18 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] copied boost files in other projects
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/08/16 10:16, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
I encountered some projects that have copied files from boost and replaced the copyright and license notice by their own. Other projects have added their own license (for isntance MIT, LGPL ...) beside the Boost license notice in the copied files - does this mean that the code is dual licensed now?.
Well that is unfortunate given how permissive the BSL is.
How does the boost community deal with this?
I haven't heard of it coming up before.
I'm not a lawyer, but here's my understanding.
BSL explicitly prohibits removal of the license text from the files. This means the particular headers taken from Boost must be licensed under BSL. I think the projects that remove the license are doing it illegally.
That is my understanding also.
This does not prohibit derivative works from being licensed under other
terms, including the licenses you mentioned, which AFAIK are compatible with the BSL.
Also my understanding.
This does not require to add the other license to the Boost headers, in addition to BSL, and I think doing so is also wrong because it changes the licensing terms on the particular Boost headers without the authors' consent.
Yeah.. Relicensing under different terms is not allowed under international IP rules without explicit permission, AFAIK.
I don't know how to deal with this but I think a kind request to stop that practice to the violating projects is a good starting point.
One option is to contact our SFC legal representative and ask them to look into the offending projects. They can then send authoritative notices to the projects.
+1 We should object to this strongly. Especially if the license is more restrictive than Boost licence (GPL) or if any copyright claim is removed. If it is a derived work, then new copyright claims should be added. Anyway it is Very Bad Manners (especially considering how unrestrictive the Boost license is). Paul PS I have seen widespread use of copied Boost.Math text for commercial use without any acknowledgement of copyright or thanks. Poor :-( --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
2016-12-08 18:39 GMT+03:00 Paul A. Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com>:
On 12/08/16 10:16, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
I encountered some projects that have copied files from boost and replaced the copyright and license notice by their own. Other projects have added their own license (for isntance MIT, LGPL ...) beside the Boost license notice in the copied files - does this mean that the code is dual licensed now?. <...> One option is to contact our SFC legal representative and ask them to look into the offending projects. They can then send authoritative notices to the projects.
+1
We should object to this strongly.
I'd rather not. Forcing projects to leave the Boost license in copypasted code - is a bad advertisement that may scare off some projects. It may even scare off projects that are careful about licenses and never change them in copypasted code. Many people know the Boost code and can recognize it in other projects even without copyright notices. Some countries ignore the EU/USA laws on licenses and people that rewrite license are not breaking their country law. Leaving the Boost license in copypasted code is mostly the matter of good upbringing and education. Just ignore the lowbrows :) -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin
On 12/09/16 10:50, Antony Polukhin wrote:
2016-12-08 18:39 GMT+03:00 Paul A. Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com>:
On 12/08/16 10:16, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
I encountered some projects that have copied files from boost and replaced the copyright and license notice by their own. Other projects have added their own license (for isntance MIT, LGPL ...) beside the Boost license notice in the copied files - does this mean that the code is dual licensed now?. <...> One option is to contact our SFC legal representative and ask them to look into the offending projects. They can then send authoritative notices to the projects.
+1
We should object to this strongly.
I'd rather not.
Forcing projects to leave the Boost license in copypasted code - is a bad advertisement that may scare off some projects. It may even scare off projects that are careful about licenses and never change them in copypasted code.
Many people know the Boost code and can recognize it in other projects even without copyright notices. Some countries ignore the EU/USA laws on licenses and people that rewrite license are not breaking their country law. Leaving the Boost license in copypasted code is mostly the matter of good upbringing and education. Just ignore the lowbrows :)
Personally, I'd rather people not use my code if they don't want to comply with the license. If not illegal, this is simply not fair. If that scares someone off, well, that's too bad for them.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/08/16 10:16, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
I encountered some projects that have copied files from boost and replaced the copyright and license notice by their own. Other projects have added their own license (for isntance MIT, LGPL ...) beside the Boost
notice in the copied files - does this mean that the code is dual
2016-12-08 18:39 GMT+03:00 Paul A. Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com>: license licensed
now?. <...> One option is to contact our SFC legal representative and ask them to look into the offending projects. They can then send authoritative notices to the projects.
+1
We should object to this strongly.
I'd rather not.
Forcing projects to leave the Boost license in copypasted code - is a bad advertisement that may scare off some projects. It may even scare off projects that are careful about licenses and never change them in copypasted code.
It may scare some people off but.. Keeping a clear license lineage is important for reasons other than attribution. It protects Boost authors from liability and counter IP claims. For example if someone relicenses some files to GPL and the author doesn't complain about it.. At some future point some one else can claim that GPL applies to other Boost code. If someone relicenses authors could get sued for many reasons including bogus patent violations and IP theft. I know it's only a small chance of such things happening but it's not a zero chance.
Just ignore the lowbrows :)
Unfortunately copyright doesn't see kindly to ignoring the "lowbrows". If you don't enforce your copyrights you do have a real chance of loosing them. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
On 12/8/16 11:50 PM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
2016-12-08 18:39 GMT+03:00 Paul A. Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com>:
On 12/08/16 10:16, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
I encountered some projects that have copied files from boost and replaced the copyright and license notice by their own. Other projects have added their own license (for isntance MIT, LGPL ...) beside the Boost license notice in the copied files - does this mean that the code is dual licensed now?. <...> One option is to contact our SFC legal representative and ask them to look into the offending projects. They can then send authoritative notices to the projects.
+1
We should object to this strongly.
As a practical matter, there's not much point to making efforts to enforce a copyright for a work which is made available without charge.
I'd rather not.
Forcing projects to leave the Boost license in copypasted code - is a bad advertisement that may scare off some projects. It may even scare off projects that are careful about licenses and never change them in copypasted code.
Many people know the Boost code and can recognize it in other projects even without copyright notices. Some countries ignore the EU/USA laws on licenses and people that rewrite license are not breaking their country law. Leaving the Boost license in copypasted code is mostly the matter of good upbringing and education. Just ignore the lowbrows :)
Writing of software is a work of authorship and craft just as is other works like music, theater, movies, etc. are. We should apply the same criteria law, custom and procedure to our software as other authors do to they're own work. The writer of these works "own" their work in that they have certain rights to place conditions on it's use. The Boost license states those conditions and are very, very, liberal. Basically all we ask for is that those who use our work acknowledge it's provenance. Anyone who does not want to do this is free not to use the work. The concept of copyright has long history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law) of promoting development of arts and technology. It should not be lightly set aside. Unfortunately, in recent years the software industry strayed away from copyrights into the world of patents - much to the detriment of software and technology and to the interests of those of us who create and use these tools. As the author of a successful book on Boost and C++ https://www.amazon.com/Boost-C-Application-Development-Cookbook/dp/184951488... Should that be also available for people to just copy and and promote as their own work? Robert Ramey PS Actually, this is just a tiny peek at a much larger and more interesting subject which I could be provoked to rant on - but I'll spare you all that.
2016-12-09 19:47 GMT+03:00 Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com>: <...>
As the author of a successful book on Boost and C++ https://www.amazon.com/Boost-C-Application-Development-Cookbook/dp/184951488... Should that be also available for people to just copy and and promote as their own work?
I would not object, if anyone will use that book for writing a better one or will use it in some other way in a derived work. However I'm not the one who can allow that, publishing agency "owns" the text (however the source codes are Boost licensed https://github.com/apolukhin/Boost-Cookbook-4880OS , you may freely reuse the code from examples). I would object if someone will copypaste it and change the author name to it's own. I'm easy to convince. Now my personal opinion is that copypasting Boost code and dropping the license may be tolerated, depending on the volume of the derived work. What are the volumes of copypasted code compared to the derived code? If 90% - let's do something, if 10% - I don't care. -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:47 AM Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Writing of software is a work of authorship and craft just as is other works like music, theater, movies, etc. are. We should apply the same criteria law, custom and procedure to our software as other authors do to they're own work. The writer of these works "own" their work in that they have certain rights to place conditions on it's use. The Boost license states those conditions and are very, very, liberal. Basically all we ask for is that those who use our work acknowledge it's provenance. Anyone who does not want to do this is free not to use the work.
The concept of copyright has long history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law) of promoting development of arts and technology. It should not be lightly set aside. Unfortunately, in recent years the software industry strayed away from copyrights into the world of patents - much to the detriment of software and technology and to the interests of those of us who create and use these tools.
On a related note, somebody asked me to add a new sort call to the Boost.Sort library, I told them we'd need to contact the author to get them to send us a copy with the Boost copyright, and then they told me they copied it and modified it, and sent it to me, and that was ok because it had an open-source license. I assume that I should automatically reject any proposed new library contributions from that individual?
I wonder if a similar mechanism (third parties copying copyrighted source code, removing the copyright, and contributing it) could be causing those who own these other libraries to unknowingly be violating the Boost license? In that case, we should be notifying them, and if this is the problem, they'll likely correct it.
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Steven Ross Sent: 11 December 2016 14:47 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] copied boost files in other projects
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:47 AM Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Writing of software is a work of authorship and craft just as is other works like music, theater, movies, etc. are. We should apply the same criteria law, custom and procedure to our software as other authors do to they're own work. The writer of these works "own" their work in that they have certain rights to place conditions on it's use. The Boost license states those conditions and are very, very, liberal. Basically all we ask for is that those who use our work acknowledge it's provenance. Anyone who does not want to do this is free not to use the work.
The concept of copyright has long history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law) of promoting development of arts and technology. It should not be lightly set aside. Unfortunately, in recent years the software industry strayed away from copyrights into the world of patents - much to the detriment of software and technology and to the interests of those of us who create and use these tools.
On a related note, somebody asked me to add a new sort call to the Boost.Sort library, I told them we'd need to contact the author to get them to send us a copy with the Boost copyright, and then they told me they copied it and modified it, and sent it to me, and that was ok because it had an open-source license. I assume that I should automatically reject any proposed new library contributions from that individual?
Definitely Yes if it was originally a GPL licence. Probably Yes - unless you can get permission to also Boost licence it from the original author? (An email doing this would suffice - I think we have a secure place to store these emails). And of course the original author and the modifier should get a reference in the code and documentation. Part of the point of the Boost licence is to ensure that *all* authors get credit, as well as preventing loss of copyright and loss of patent priority.
I wonder if a similar mechanism (third parties copying copyrighted source code, removing the copyright, and contributing it) could be causing those who own these other libraries to unknowingly be violating the Boost license? In that case, we should be notifying them, and if this is the problem, they'll likely correct it.
Agreed. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
On 12/11/16 6:47 AM, Steven Ross wrote:
On a related note, somebody asked me to add a new sort call to the Boost.Sort library, I told them we'd need to contact the author to get them to send us a copy with the Boost copyright, and then they told me they copied it and modified it, and sent it to me, and that was ok because it had an open-source license. I assume that I should automatically reject any proposed new library contributions from that individual?
The boost license is pretty unambiguous. Anyone can use it for any purpose as long as the original copyright notice is included. Period. There is not requirement for notification, permission or anything else. Robert Ramey
On 13/12/2016 05:15, Robert Ramey wrote:
On 12/11/16 6:47 AM, Steven Ross wrote:
On a related note, somebody asked me to add a new sort call to the Boost.Sort library, I told them we'd need to contact the author to get them to send us a copy with the Boost copyright, and then they told me they copied it and modified it, and sent it to me, and that was ok because it had an open-source license. I assume that I should automatically reject any proposed new library contributions from that individual?
The boost license is pretty unambiguous. Anyone can use it for any purpose as long as the original copyright notice is included. Period. There is not requirement for notification, permission or anything else.
When the original work is Boost-licensed, sure. But the situation described here is where the original work has a different license, and someone has just removed that and replaced it with a Boost one without asking the original author. That's ok for public domain and CC-0, and possibly ok for CC-BY, but not valid for pretty much every other license type. (The Boost license is very similar to MIT/BSD/Apache licenses, but just different enough that replacing one with the other without the author's permission isn't really kosher. And completely unacceptable for GPL or LGPL.)
On 12/12/16 2:13 PM, Gavin Lambert wrote:
On 13/12/2016 05:15, Robert Ramey wrote:
On 12/11/16 6:47 AM, Steven Ross wrote:
On a related note, somebody asked me to add a new sort call to the Boost.Sort library, I told them we'd need to contact the author to get them to send us a copy with the Boost copyright, and then they told me they copied it and modified it, and sent it to me, and that was ok because it had an open-source license. I assume that I should automatically reject any proposed new library contributions from that individual?
The boost license is pretty unambiguous. Anyone can use it for any purpose as long as the original copyright notice is included. Period. There is not requirement for notification, permission or anything else.
When the original work is Boost-licensed, sure. But the situation described here is where the original work has a different license, and someone has just removed that and replaced it with a Boost one without asking the original author.
Right. I got a little confused when I read the scenario and didn't realize that the code being submitted wasn't written by the submitter but rather a third person. Robert Ramey
On 12/09/2016 08:50 AM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
even without copyright notices. Some countries ignore the EU/USA laws on licenses and people that rewrite license are not breaking their country law. Leaving the Boost license in copypasted code is mostly
While copyright is subject to national law, there are 169 assignees of the Berne Convention, so this is not about EU/USA laws.
participants (9)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Antony Polukhin -
Bjorn Reese -
Gavin Lambert -
Oliver Kowalke -
Paul A. Bristow -
Rene Rivera -
Robert Ramey -
Steven Ross