Hi- I am considering using boost in my applications, but I have a question about the boost license at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt . It says (edited) "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to ... use [and] reproduce ... the Software". It also says that any derivative works must also have the same license grant. If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a derivative work? If so, does that mean that if I distribute my compiled software, I must allow free of charge use and distribution? Thanks. -- Marleny
I am considering using boost in my applications, but I have a question about the boost license at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt . It says (edited) "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to ... use [and] reproduce ... the Software".
It also says that any derivative works must also have the same license grant.
If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a derivative work?
No. I think derivative work here means if you modify the boost library source code.
If so, does that mean that if I distribute my compiled software, I must allow free of charge use and distribution?
No, you can compile boost libraries into commercial, closed-source software. Darren P.S. I'm not a lawyer, but I know the boost library is supposed to be BSD-like, rather than GPL-like.
Marleny Rafferty <marleny@rafferty.net> writes:
Hi-
I am considering using boost in my applications, but I have a question about the boost license at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt . It says (edited) "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to ... use [and] reproduce ... the Software".
It also says that any derivative works must also have the same license grant.
If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a derivative work?
Yes.
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): 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. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
On 2/24/04 5:42 PM, "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Marleny Rafferty <marleny@rafferty.net> writes:
Hi-
I am considering using boost in my applications, but I have a question about the boost license at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt . It says (edited) "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to ... use [and] reproduce ... the Software".
It also says that any derivative works must also have the same license grant.
If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a derivative work?
Yes.
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):
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.
So you're saying that "I must allow free of charge use and distribution" if my derivative work is not "solely" in the form of compiled code? If I write an application that uses the Boost sources and wish to sell it in source form with the Boost files as part of the package, I can't do it because that wouldn't be "free of charge use and distribution"? I don't believe that is the intention of the license. With the standard "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer, I believe what it is attempting to say is that you may not distribute the *Boost source* without this notice even if it is part of a derivative work. In practice, the files that you create from scratch (for your derivative work) you may copyright and license as you wish, but the Boost files must have this license. (If you want to modify the boost files and not have your modifications covered by the license, I suppose you could call the portions of the code that are not covered by the license in the source file, but you might be on legal thin ice.) I'm not qualified to say if this is what the license actually means to a judge, but I believe that this is the intent. -- Jon Kalb Kalb@LibertySoft.com
Jon Kalb <Kalb@LibertySoft.com> writes:
On 2/24/04 5:42 PM, "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Marleny Rafferty <marleny@rafferty.net> writes:
Hi-
I am considering using boost in my applications, but I have a question about the boost license at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt . It says (edited) "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to ... use [and] reproduce ... the Software".
It also says that any derivative works must also have the same license grant.
If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a derivative work?
Yes.
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):
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.
So you're saying that "I must allow free of charge use and distribution" if my derivative work is not "solely" in the form of compiled code? If I write an application that uses the Boost sources and wish to sell it in source form with the Boost files as part of the package, I can't do it because that wouldn't be "free of charge use and distribution"?
The fact you sell your application together with sources doesn't make the combination a single "work" (IANAL).
I don't believe that is the intention of the license.
No, you're misreading it (IANAL but I know the intent). You're allowed to charge all you want, but any **non-compiled** derivative work, once you've sold it, becomes freely redistributable.
With the standard "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer, I believe what it is attempting to say is that you may not distribute the *Boost source* without this notice even if it is part of a derivative work.
Exactly.
In practice, the files that you create from scratch (for your derivative work) you may copyright and license as you wish, but the Boost files must have this license. (If you want to modify the boost files and not have your modifications covered by the license, I suppose you could call the portions of the code that are not covered by the license in the source file, but you might be on legal thin ice.)
I don't know what you're getting at here.
I'm not qualified to say if this is what the license actually means to a judge, but I believe that this is the intent.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
At Tuesday 2004-02-24 18:42, you wrote:
Marleny Rafferty <marleny@rafferty.net> writes:
Hi-
I am considering using boost in my applications, but I have a question about the boost license at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt . It says (edited) "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to ... use [and] reproduce ... the Software".
It also says that any derivative works must also have the same license grant.
If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a derivative work?
Yes.
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):
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.
Your interpretation says a copy of the source must be "free to use and reproduce" but the compiled output not. 1) I don't belive it 2) I don't believe that's enforceable 3) who is protected by this? Certainly not anyone trying to USE the library.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"
"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com> writes:
At Tuesday 2004-02-24 18:42, you wrote:
Marleny Rafferty <marleny@rafferty.net> writes:
Hi-
I am considering using boost in my applications, but I have a question about the boost license at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt . It says (edited) "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to ... use [and] reproduce ... the Software".
It also says that any derivative works must also have the same license grant.
If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a derivative work?
Yes.
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):
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.
Your interpretation says a copy of the source must be "free to use and reproduce" but the compiled output not.
1) I don't belive it
a. I don't believe you don't believe it.
2) I don't believe that's enforceable
b. I don't believe you can prove you don't believe it. That was exactly the interpretation we asked the lawyers who worked with us to encode in the license, so I don't know why you'd doubt me. The lawyers are very good at their jobs.
3) who is protected by this? Certainly not anyone trying to USE the library.
c. The authors who intended the source code to remain freely usable, and the boost goal that there be no barriers to free use of the software. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
A little late to this license party, but I want to make sure I know what it means: David Abrahams wrote:
Marleny Rafferty <marleny@rafferty.net> writes:
Hi-
I am considering using boost in my applications, but I have a question about the boost license at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt . It says (edited) "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to ... use [and] reproduce ... the Software".
It also says that any derivative works must also have the same license grant.
If my application uses boost libraries unchanged, is it considered a derivative work?
Yes.
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
So if we use boost in our program: 1] If we sell it as a compiled program, we can retain our own license 2] If we sell it to a customer who wants the source code too, we have to use the boost license, and thus the customer is free to give our source code away at that point? -- Jonathan Arnold (mailto:jdarnold@buddydog.org) Daemon Dancing in the Dark, a FreeBSD weblog: http://freebsd.amazingdev.com/blog/
Jonathan Arnold <jdarnold@buddydog.org> writes:
2] If we sell it to a customer who wants the source code too, we have to use the boost license, and thus the customer is free to give our source code away at that point?
No, you're free to license your own source code under any terms you like. If the customer wants the Boost source code, you can't charge them for that (but you can charge them anything you like for packaging, media, etc. required to deliver it). -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Jonathan Arnold <jdarnold@buddydog.org> writes:
So if we use boost in our program:
1] If we sell it as a compiled program, we can retain our own license
2] If we sell it to a customer who wants the source code too, we have to use the boost license, and thus the customer is free to give our source code away at that point?
Only the Boost code must use the Boost license; you can put any license terms you wish on your own code. Why would you think otherwise? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (1)
-
Darren Cook -
David Abrahams -
Jon Kalb -
Jonathan Arnold -
Marleny Rafferty -
Victor A. Wagner Jr.