-----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
"Darryl Green"
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.
Not a complete sentence. Missing "of" after "rights"?
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.
Basically right.
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?
That was the intent, and as far as I can tell the license fulfills the intent.
Here is my proposed "patch" in a form suitable for forwarding to lawyers for "testing".
Q: Does #include
make the including file a derived work?
Translation for non-programmers (lawyers in particular):
The incantation
#include
A: No. That is use, but not derivation. But if instead of #include, you pasted in a legally significant portion of
, that would make your program a derived work. Note that if you pasted in code from several sources, your code might become a derived work of each of those sources. Source - Beman Dawes in http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/1686928
Q: Is the object file produced by compiling a source file which contains #include
a derived work? A: Yes. However, the license explicitly grants the right to distribute object code derivative works (the result of compiling source which includes boost files) without the boost license.
Q: So I can apply my own choice of license terms to the object code?
A: Yes.
Is this legally and "intently" correct?
I believe so. Subject to approval by a lawyer I think we should add it to the FAQ. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (2)
-
Darryl Green -
David Abrahams