-----Original Message----- From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave@boost-consulting.com] [snip]
If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a derivative work?
Yes.
Really? The ligitimacy of this stance seems questionable (but ianal etc). Further I did not see it as being part of the objectives for the license. Quite the opposite in fact.
Correct. IANAL either. It just seemed to me that we wouldn't have to provide the explicit exception below unless it could be interpreted that binaries were derivative.
Ah - binaries - ok - that makes sense.
If so, does that mean that if I distribute my compiled software, I must allow free of charge use and distribution?
No, the license gives an explicit exemption for compiled code (emphasis mine):
[let me just re-insert some additioanl context here] ! The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement ! ... ! must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and
all derivative works of the Software, UNLESS SUCH COPIES
OR DERIVATIVE
WORKS ARE SOLELY IN THE FORM OF MACHINE-EXECUTABLE OBJECT CODE GENERATED BY A SOURCE LANGUAGE PROCESSOR.
I took this to mean that nobody can delete/change the copyright/license in the sources if they copy or produce a derivative work but that there is no need to include the license in a binary distribution.
Correct.
It did not occur to me that leaving the license in place somehow forms a viral attachment to other source in a source distribution.
I don't know what you mean.
My misunderstanding about what was the derived work in your "yes" above. The rest of my post was based on that misunderstanding. [snip]
Whatever the conclusion I think this needs to be in the FAQ.
Patches welcomed
I'm happy to provide a patch once I'm reasonably sure I understand the
license. I'm assuming an email discussion will be more productive than
patches in the meantime. I have one more question that I have a proposed
FAQ answer for, but my "answer" is based purely on what I think it
should be, not an understanding of the law. The point that confuses me
is:
If a program uses boost, the binary distro doesn't need to contain the
license, but it is a derivative work. As I understand it, a derivative
work contains exclusive rights both the "preexisting material" author
and "contributed material" author. This in turn means there must be some
form of agreement as to how the derivative work can be distributed. The
boost license seems to deal with that by saying that the derivative work
must contain the boost license wording unless the derivative work is
object code. That seems to result in a reasonably clear rule for
derivative works that are not object code. What I'm not sure on is
whether the grant to allow derivative works, combined with permission to
omit the license wording from object code, gives the "contributing
author" the right to distribute the object code "derived work" under any
terms/license that author choses?
Here is my proposed "patch" in a form suitable for forwarding to lawyers
for "testing".
Q: Does #include