Boost Software License implications for derivative works
The Boost Software License (BSL) requires derivative works to include the text of the Boost License itself. I am considering the use of the Boost preprocessor library (only) to implment certain parts of Castor <http://www.mpprogramming.com/cpp> (an open source C++ library) which is already covered under the MIT license. My real concern is, by including the BSL text in Castor, I dont want it to look as if Castor is covered by BSL when it is actually covered by MIT license. As Boost::pp would be used internally it would be shipped as part of the library. Would it suffice if boost::pp headers were simply bundled as-is, along with the licensing text that appears at the top each header ? That way it would appear as if only those headers are covered by BSL and the rest of Castor is covered by MIT. - Roshan
As far as I understand Boost Software License, you are not permitted to delete the copyright statements from the boost files (header and cpp files), but that does not relate to your files. In the second paragraph boost libraries are named "the Software", the third paragraph references "... the Software...". Because software starts with a capital letter, it references boost licensed software and not the whole software produced when deriving from boost licensed lib(s). But I am not a lawyer ;) Regards, Ovanes On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Naik, Roshan <roshan.naik@hp.com> wrote:
The Boost Software License (BSL) requires derivative works to include the text of the Boost License itself.
I am considering the use of the Boost preprocessor library (only) to implment certain parts of Castor <http://www.mpprogramming.com/cpp> (an open source C++ library) which is already covered under the MIT license.
My real concern is, by including the BSL text in Castor, I dont want it to look as if Castor is covered by BSL when it is actually covered by MIT license.
As Boost::pp would be used internally it would be shipped as part of the library.
Would it suffice if boost::pp headers were simply bundled as-is, along with the licensing text that appears at the top each header ? That way it would appear as if only those headers are covered by BSL and the rest of Castor is covered by MIT.
- Roshan _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
The Boost Software License (BSL) requires derivative works to include the text of the Boost License itself.
I am considering the use of the Boost preprocessor library (only) to implment certain parts of Castor <http://www.mpprogramming.com/cpp> (an open source C++ library) which is already covered under the MIT license.
My real concern is, by including the BSL text in Castor, I dont want it to look as if Castor is covered by BSL when it is actually covered by MIT license.
As Boost::pp would be used internally it would be shipped as part of the library.
Would it suffice if boost::pp headers were simply bundled as-is, along with the licensing text that appears at the top each header ? That way it would appear as if only those headers are covered by BSL and the rest of Castor is covered by MIT.
The BSL is intended to be non-viral, your code can appear under any terms you want regardless of the fact that it uses Boost. The only requirement is that the BSL remains on the Boost headers, or on code directly derived from them (by cut and paste for example). HTH, John.
participants (4)
-
John Maddock -
Naik, Roshan -
Ovanes Markarian