I know this is pretty late in the process but also have a couple of questions: #1 I'd prefer that any software I contribute to boost remain "free", as in I don't want someone to add 20 lines of code to a library and then sell it. You can sell the compiled machine code but not the original or the modified source other than to cover duplication and distribution costs. #2 I have worked for a overly restrictive employer who was paranoid that anything anyone might do on their own time might be owned by the employee and not the employee. It would be extremely helpful if the license states clearly that derivatives cannot be owned. I'm all for a company like "Boost Consulting", I think they add plenty of value to the boost community and give back way more than they take from the free software. However greedy companies have been known to take free software, modify it and not return it to the public domain. There of course is no time limit and no way to prevent this from happening but it would be better if the copyright was a copy left. Also all that bit about the liability disclaimers, forget it, you can be sued for anything, at anytime, not withstanding the claim about the liability, it might as well not be there for all the good it will do us. On the other hand it does give us a leg up in the event of a lawsuit, "We claimed it was worthless your honor." Also one should be able to write a book about boost, use part of the documentation without a heap of trouble. But a bound reprint of the documentation is owned by???? In general I support this effort. Perhaps some clarifying statements in the FAQ would be enough to calm my fears. -Gary-
"Powell, Gary" wrote: [...]
#1 I'd prefer that any software I contribute to boost remain "free", as in I don't want someone to add 20 lines of code to a library and then sell it. You can sell the compiled machine code but not the original or the modified source other than to cover duplication and distribution costs.
Boost licensing policy aside for a moment, the CPL is your friend. Briefly, - derivative works subject to CPL; - grant of patent license; - redistribution of binaries under a different license, even a commercial license, is permitted (but the CPL'd source code must still be made available under the CPL); - CPL'd code may be combined with other licensed code without affecting the other code's license. http://www.eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.html http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7473 http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7477 regards, alexander.
"Powell, Gary" <powellg@amazon.com> writes:
I know this is pretty late in the process but also have a couple of questions:
#1 I'd prefer that any software I contribute to boost remain "free", as in I don't want someone to add 20 lines of code to a library and then sell it. You can sell the compiled machine code but not the original or the modified source other than to cover duplication and distribution costs.
That restriction is incompatible even with the original Boost license requirements. The software must be free for any use, including resale (without modification).
#2 I have worked for a overly restrictive employer who was paranoid that anything anyone might do on their own time might be owned by the employee and not the employee. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ?? It would be extremely helpful if the license states clearly that derivatives cannot be owned.
Please explain.
I'm all for a company like "Boost Consulting", I think they add plenty of value to the boost community and give back way more than they take from the free software. However greedy companies have been known to take free software, modify it and not return it to the public domain. There of course is no time limit and no way to prevent this from happening but it would be better if the copyright was a copy left.
That discourages reuse, and I think it's also against the Boost license requirements.
Also all that bit about the liability disclaimers, forget it, you can be sued for anything, at anytime, not withstanding the claim about the liability, it might as well not be there for all the good it will do us. On the other hand it does give us a leg up in the event of a lawsuit, "We claimed it was worthless your honor."
Also one should be able to write a book about boost, use part of the documentation without a heap of trouble. But a bound reprint of the documentation is owned by????
In general I support this effort. Perhaps some clarifying statements in the FAQ would be enough to calm my fears.
Probably not. It sounds like you have licensing goals that are incompatible with the intentions of Boost. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (3)
-
Alexander Terekhov -
David Abrahams -
Powell, Gary