Dear Boost Graph Library Developers, The following is a reply to a bug report from a Debian user [http://bugs.debian.org/349209] pointing out deficiencies in the library licensing, from Debian's point of view. We'd like to know whether the few remaining files NOT available under the Boost Software License may be relicensed. Thanks. On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 04:21:38PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:

According to boost debian/copyright file, the Boost Graph library does not seem to comply with the DFSG.

That file is out of date. Most of the current boost source files are licensed under the Boost Software License [http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt] which I believe is OK by DFSG. I found the exceptions in the HEADER files using cd boost/graph find * -type f | xargs grep -L 'http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt' Of the exceptions these 8 are under the original GRAPH license: adjacency_list_io.hpp cuthill_mckee_ordering.hpp detail/sparse_ordering.hpp BLANKET king_ordering.hpp profile.hpp relax.hpp BLANKET sloan_ordering.hpp wavefront.hpp The two marked BLANKET, however, are actually available under the Boost Software License as all listed authors have granted permission to replace all existing licenses on their contributions to Boost with the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. [http://www.boost.org/more/blanket-permission.txt] For the record here are the set of authors and whether they appear on blanket-permission.txt: François Faure NO Andrew Lumsdaine YES Lie-Quan Lee YES Jeremy G. Siek YES Doug Gregor YES D. Kevin McGrath NO Marc Wintermantel NO Three more of the headers have MIT/BSD-like licenses which sound okay to me. They are as follows. File detail/bitset.hpp is from SGI with the following license: /* * Copyright (c) 1998 * Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. * * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software * and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and * that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear * in supporting documentation. Silicon Graphics makes no * representations about the suitability of this software for any * purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. */ File isomorphism.hpp is under the following license: // Copyright (C) 2001 Jeremy Siek, Douglas Gregor, Brian Osman // // Permission to copy, use, sell and distribute this software is granted // provided this copyright notice appears in all copies. // Permission to modify the code and to distribute modified code is granted // provided this copyright notice appears in all copies, and a notice // that the code was modified is included with the copyright notice. // // This software is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty, // and with no claim as to its suitability for any purpose. File property_iter_range.hpp is under the following license: // (C) Copyright François Faure, iMAGIS-GRAVIR / UJF, 2001. Permission // to copy, use, modify, sell and distribute this software is granted // provided this copyright notice appears in all copies. This software // is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty, and with // no claim as to its suitability for any purpose. File simple_point.hpp has no copyright at all. I presume this is an oversight and invite the Boost Graph authors to comment.

What is worse, it seems there's no permission to distribute the Boost Graph Library in compiled form.

The headers are only distributed as sources, so that should be OK, even if annoying and possibly non-free (see below). There is a small library that is compiled to libbgl-viz. This library has four source files, three of which are under Boost Software License. The exception is libs/graph/src/graphviz_lex.ll, which is under the origian graph license. On the other hand, the listed author, Lie-Quan Lee has given blanket permission, so we may apply the Boost Software License to it as well.

| Any disputes arising out of this Agreement or LICENSEE'S use of the | software at any time shall be resolved by the courts of the state of | Indiana. LICENSEE hereby consents to the jurisdiction of the Indiana | courts and waives the right to challenge the jurisdiction thereof in | any dispute arising out of this Agreement or Licensee's use of the | software.

This is a choice of venue, which is considered non-free by many debian-legal regulars (including myself...). People who accept this license may be forced to travel to the state of Indiana, whenever the copyright holder decides to sue them (even for frivolous claims, even if they live on the other side of the ocean). This is a significant restriction on the exercise of the rights granted by the license.

This sounds like a serious problem. I'd hate to have to remove part of Boost from Debian. To the graph authors: is it possible that the remaining few files can be relicensed under BSL? Thanks, -Steve Robbins (co-maintainer of Boost for Debian)