On 8/26/19 2:02 AM, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:
On 22/08/2019 21:37, Michael Caisse via Boost wrote:
Copying to dev ML.
On 8/22/19 12:05, Gerald Wiltse via Boost-users wrote:
During an annual third-party audit of our source code, boost intrusive was flagged as containing unlicensed code. Specifically, there are several pieces of code in this file which are explicitly attributed to external parties on external websites, which still exist and show no license.
https://github.com/boostorg/intrusive/blob/develop/include/boost/intrusive/d...
https://github.com/boostorg/intrusive/blob/develop/include/boost/intrusive/d...
Original sources: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11376288/fast-computing-of-log2-for-64-bi...
http://www.flipcode.com/archives/Fast_log_Function.shtml
I don't claim to be a license expert. I've read a lot over the years, but this is the first time that I've actually been between an attorney and a codebase having to figure out practical implications of a scenario like this.
I first want to make sure that Boost committee is aware of this situation.
Second, I would like to know what the official conclusion would be from the Boost Committee about the license implications in cases like these. Maybe it has come up before and is well established. On the surface, the implications seems ambiguous to me when: DEVELOPER_A takes unlicensed code off the internet, prefixes it with a comment that says "Thanks to DEVELOPER_B ", then prefixes the whole file with a file-level copyright notice that says "COPYRIGHT DEVELOPER_A", and then says it's distributed under BSL-1.0 license, and then the boost team re-distributes the source code.
Internally at my company, there was little discussion about it. There is no room for ambiguity, so the directive from management was to delete the file from our SCM system completely and ensure it never is included in our products. VERY fortunately, deleting it doesn't seem to have broken our builds. In future cases like this, that's really not what we want to be doing with your OSS libraries for obvious reasons. So, I'd like to know if there's any chance this situation changes in a future version of Boost (I.E., the code be removed/re-written with clean-room approach, etc).
Hi,
I didn't expect those snippets in the public domain of well-known methods could be a problem, and I explicitly thanked the authors.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that works under public domain can be used by everyone in any way, including modifying and redistributing under a (different) license with no identification of the original author. Thus using public domain code in a BSL-licensed Boost library should be fine. That the original author or source was also acknowledged is legally unneccessary, but is a gesture of gratitude and good faith. If I'm wrong then I would like to be corrected by someone who knows for certain. I think, this might be a good case for the Steering Committee to ask advice of a lawyer.