"John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:

...

This is a reminder to urge Boost developers to add their names to http://www.boost.org/more/blanket-permission.txt if applicable. In fact, I would also like to see a list of authors who explicitly don't want their libraries be subject to the new Boost license.

If anybody wants me to do a license conversion for them, I'd be more than happy to. Just contact me, let me know what library you want converted, and I will send you back the patches.

As long as some of the wide-spread libraries (MPL, smart_ptr, etc.) keep their old license, libraries that depend on these are effectively still limited.

I think we're going to have to be more pro-active about this or it'll never get done. It would help if someone would go through the common code in the boost/detail directory and ask the authors for permission to change their licenses, after that we can hit on individual libraries.

It's a good idea. FWIW, we're going to have problems doing that for the threads library if nobody can find Bill Kempf. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com

"John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:

...

...

This is a reminder to urge Boost developers to add their names to http://www.boost.org/more/blanket-permission.txt if applicable. In fact, I would also like to see a list of authors who explicitly don't want their libraries be subject to the new Boost license.

If anybody wants me to do a license conversion for them, I'd be more than happy to. Just contact me, let me know what library you want converted, and I will send you back the patches.

As long as some of the wide-spread libraries (MPL, smart_ptr, etc.) keep their old license, libraries that depend on these are effectively still limited.

I think we're going to have to be more pro-active about this or it'll never get done. It would help if someone would go through the common code in the boost/detail directory and ask the authors for permission to change their licenses, after that we can hit on individual libraries.

It's a good idea.

FWIW, we're going to have problems doing that for the threads

"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:u4qqwo1dn.fsf@boost-consulting.com... library if

nobody can find Bill Kempf.

I was going to mention this, too. FWIW, I'm still trying (to contact him, that is). Also FWIW, I just added my name to the list. Mike

"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:ur7tzj2pj.fsf@boost-consulting.com...

"Michael Glassford" <glassfordm@hotmail.com> writes:

...

...

FWIW, we're going to have problems doing that for the threads library if nobody can find Bill Kempf.

I was going to mention this, too. FWIW, I'm still trying (to contact him, that is).

Also FWIW, I just added my name to the list.

Great! Do you already have code in Boost with a different license?

I have code in Boost (modifications of / additions to Boost.Thread) but haven't put my name on it at all.

-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

David Abrahams wrote:

"Michael Glassford" <glassfordm@hotmail.com> writes:

...

I have code in Boost (modifications of / additions to Boost.Thread) but haven't put my name on it at all.

Then it doesn't matter much.

This might depend on your country. In Germany (Europe?), (AFAIK and IANAL :), you do keep your copyright on everything even if you don't say "Copyright blablabla". This is different from the US, where you loose all your rights if you don't claim them explicitly. Hm, basically, of course, the details are a bit more complicated. However, I think I have to explicitly state what license to use, etc. to give others the right to use the stuff I wrote/added. This is actually the reason why I added my copyright on some documents although the changes were minimal. If I wouldn't do that, I would not give any rights to you. I hope (again, IANAL), that adding my name to the blanket permission is enough to make that step obsolete in the future. If any lawyers out there know better, please let me know :) Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey@aixigo.de, web: http://www.aixigo.de

Walter Landry wrote: [...]

I just realized that the Graph library is licensed under GPL-incompatible terms

FSF's "GPL incompatibility" claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine of first sale. Copyright laws of this planet do not establish exclusive right to link.

(it has a choice of law provision, among other things). In fact, it is basically a copyleft, so I'm surprised it got into boost.

I for one see nothing troubling with it. But the CPL is much better, of course. regards, alexander.

Walter Landry wrote: [...]

The GPL has very clear terms for how I can make copies of derived works. One of those terms is that the complete derived work doesn't have any additional restrictions above what the GPL has.

You don't seem to grasp the meaning of derivative work under the copyright law. A compilation is not a derivative work. Legally, compiled and linked binary is just another form of the corresponding complete source tarball (or whatever). Library dependency doesn't make dependent code derivative of the libary code no matter whether that library is some template stuff or not. Use of templates and/or static/dynamic linking does not constitues creation of derivative work. The resulting aggregation is a compilation with respect to its components, not a derivative. Mere aggregation, you know. regards, alexander. -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm

Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: [...]

If what you say here is true, then what is the point in having both a GPL and a LGPL license?

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/01/1052216&mode=nocomment "RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work, then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our licenses say, they are operative only for works that are derivative of our code. A license can say that we will treat a certain kind of work as if it were not derivative, even if the courts think it is. The Lesser GPL does this in certain cases, in effect declining to use some of the power that the courts would give us. But we cannot tell the courts to treat a certain kind of work as if it were derivative, if the courts think it is not." See also (read the entire thread): http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40240658.1B0A0E55%40web.de regards, alexander.

Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: [...]

| "RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That | is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright | law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work, | then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our | licenses say, they are operative only for works that are | derivative of our code.

...

| A license can say that we will treat a certain kind of work as if | it were not derivative, even if the courts think it is. The Lesser | GPL does this in certain cases, in effect declining to use some | of the power that the courts would give us. But we cannot tell the | courts to treat a certain kind of work as if it were derivative, | if the courts think it is not."

I read this snippet to go against your conclusion, not to support it.

http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004248.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004297.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004301.html And, BTW, the resulting "Fabricated responses" thread is also worth your attention, I think. http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004306.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004308.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004309.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004321.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004353.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004358.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004384.html

So:

Linking a non-GPL-like project to a GPL'ed lib is not ok. Linking a non-GLP-like project to a LGPL'ed lib is ok.

Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine of first sale. regards, alexander.

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes: | Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and | the doctrine of first sale. So what you are saying is that GPL/LGPL is unenforceable? So that all software that uses GPL has in fact no-license at all and that regular copyright law rules? Are you then saying that no-one is really allowed to use GPL software since they have not got permission to do so? You really seem to have some agenda, but it is not clear to me what it is. -- Lgb

The link managed to escape. Bringing it back. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:

...

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

| Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and | the doctrine of first sale.

So what you are saying is that GPL/LGPL is unenforceable? So that all software that uses GPL has in fact no-license at all and that regular copyright law rules?

I'm saying that copyright law doesn't contemplate copyleft ("copyright hack" <attribution: Professor Moglen>). Exclusive right to prepare derivative works has really nothing to do with linking and use of templates. Read the GCC libstdc++ license. I'm saying that the so-called "runtime exception" is unneeded because the lawful interpretation of the GPL isn't quite what you think. FSF's theory of derivative works is total crap and has no legal standing.

regards, alexander.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

| Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and | the doctrine of first sale.

So what you are saying is that GPL/LGPL is unenforceable? So that all software that uses GPL has in fact no-license at all and that regular copyright law rules?

Are you then saying that no-one is really allowed to use GPL software since they have not got permission to do so?

You really seem to have some agenda, but it is not clear to me what it is.

Maybe this is all a distraction. I think it may be a much bigger problem that the graph library's license, IIUC, seems to be incompatible with the Boost license requirements. Isn't anyone a little alarmed about that?

Yep, clause 3 of the graph-license does not appear to be Boost compatible. John.

Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

...

Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine of first sale.

So what you are saying is that GPL/LGPL is unenforceable? So that all software that uses GPL has in fact no-license at all and that regular copyright law rules?

He is saying that when you do g++ nongpl.o gpl.o you are creating a compilation, not a derivative work. His other claim is that when you do #include "gpl.hpp" #include "nongpl.hpp" int main() { gpl( 5 ); nongpl( 6 ); } you are creating a compilation of gpl.hpp, nongpl.hpp and your own copyrighted work, not a derivative work of gpl.hpp and nongpl.hpp. Obviously if you _modify_ gpl.hpp or gpl.o, you are creating a derivative work and the GPL applies in its full glory. That's how I understand Alexander's posts.

Argh. I really didn't want this to become a licensing argument. Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

Walter Landry wrote: [...]

...

The GPL has very clear terms for how I can make copies of derived works. One of those terms is that the complete derived work doesn't have any additional restrictions above what the GPL has.

You don't seem to grasp the meaning of derivative work under the copyright law. A compilation is not a derivative work. Legally, compiled and linked binary is just another form of the corresponding complete source tarball (or whatever). Library dependency doesn't make dependent code derivative of the libary code no matter whether that library is some template stuff or not. Use of templates and/or static/dynamic linking does not constitues creation of derivative work. The resulting aggregation is a compilation with respect to its components, not a derivative. Mere aggregation, you know.

This is more than just compilation. I am taking pieces of a GPL'd work and pieces of the Graph library to create a combined work (the binary). The code gets all mixed together in the binary. This is especially evident with template code.

regards, alexander.

-- http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm

The referenced case doesn't involve making copies, and turns on the particulars of visual art. You would have a point if I said that moving the code from a CD to a usb key made a derivative work. Regards, Walter Landry wlandry@ucsd.edu

Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:

I just realized that the Graph library is licensed under GPL-incompatible terms (it has a choice of law provision, among other things). In fact, it is basically a copyleft, so I'm surprised it got into boost. Andrew Lumsdaine, Lie-Quan Lee, Jeremy G. Siek, and the University of Notre Dame: Any chance you will be updating the license?

It does appear to me to be a boost-incompatible license. Am I misinterpreting it? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com