-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of David Abrahams Sent: Sunday, 4 April 2004 2:18 PM To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: [Boost-users] Re: about license

This has been sitting in my "to be dealt with" pile for quite some time, because I couldn't figure out what to do with it.

"Darryl Green" writes:

...

I've been trying to educate myself about the law in this area, with some help from Alexander Terekhov. I'm not at all convinced now that there is any derivative work produced by the compilation step

I bet that's open to legal interpretation. Precisely. Thats what makes a trivial faq Q/A hard!

...

however this seems to make no difference to the result.

Good. The intention of the license wording is to say that even if you consider the compiled code a copy or a derivative work, the requirement to embed a copy of the license doesn't apply to it.

...

It seems the compiled code is a translation of both works,

I guess you mean the boost code and whatever it's compiled along with. The latter could be nothing: there might only be boost code involved. Anyway, can you cite something authoritative that gives compiled code the status of a "translation" and not a "derivative work"?

Actually, I'm not being careful enough with my words here - I should have said "mechanical translation". To quote from http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0300 .asp <quote> 306.02(a) Translations. A translation is a ren- -dering of a work from one language to another, as, for example, a work trans- -lated from Russian into French, or from German into English. However, trans- -literations and similar processes by which letters or sounds from one alpha- -bet are converted to another are not copyrightable since the conversion is merely a mechanical act. Thus, merely changing a work from the Cyrillic to the Roman alphabet would not be copyright- -able. </quote> The question is whether comiling source code is "merely a mechanical act". However, it seems reasonable to think that it is. I don't know how authoritative an answer you are looking for (presumably, in law that would need to be some sort of precedent) however Alexander did point me to the following discussion: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7659 http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7663 http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7679 http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7680 It seems Rod Dixon at least (and he does cite some relevant material re. tests for originality) thinks that compilation doesn't produce a derivative work. Also, apparently the US copyright office thinks source code and object code are one and the same in at least some contexts - see: http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise26.html <quote> VI.B. Source Code and Object Code ... Every computer program copyright case treats the copyright in the source code and the object code as equivalent... Even though source code and object code are distinct, it is still useful to maintain the concept that the source code and the object code are just different forms of the same copyrighted work. The Copyright Office regards the source code and object code as equivalent for purposes of registration... Where an applicant is unable or unwilling to deposit source code, he/she must state in writing that the work as deposited in object code contains copyrightable authorship. The Office will send a letter stating that registration has been made under its rule of doubt and warning that it has not determined the existence of copyrightable authorship. </quote>

...

agregated (a compilation) in some way then. I think whoever produces the compilation can license it however they like, subject to permission being granted by the authors of the original works to include their work in the compilation.

I think the intent to grant that permission is made sufficiently clear by the license text, don't you?

No. Not so much because of the Boost license, but because of various other more exotic open source licenses such as the GPL in particular, changing the/my perception of what is "normal" or "expected" when it comes to copyright over software. I think it would be better spelt out clearly. However, I think at the end of the day the lawyers would figure it out as is - so the license meets the needs of lawyers at least.

...

I don't know if this is sufficiently clearly allowed by the wording of the boost license, though I think "use" must surely allow this for software source libs as there is no other way to "use" them.

There are actually lots of ways to use them, but that is certainly *a* use.

Ok.

...

So the final answer is the same

good.

...

but some of the questions and answers in between may be wrong.

I don't know what _that_ means.

Sorry - my earlier proposed FAQ Q/A might well be incorrect on some ponts of law but reaches the correct conclusion.

...

Have you received any feedback from lawyers about this?

What is "this"?

My earlier post containing the FAQ items, which you cced to the lawyers. I now understand the license sufficiently to use the code. I was hopeful that boost developers' time could be saved with a simple faq addition - but it my first attempt at that turns out (I think) to be innaccurate. I'm happy to put some time into correcting it, but ianal. If there is some lawyerly feedback I can use in correcting the FAQ proposal, I'm happy to do it. Beyond that, I don't want to waste more of your or the lawyers time on this. Regards Darryl Green. ########################################################################## This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or distribute this e-mail without the author's prior permission. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. ##########################################################################