I want to use several of the Boost libraries in a project I'm working on and am a little concerned over a potential conflict between the website information and the Boost license language. On the website it mentions that the license is "not viral" but the language in the Boost license states that ".. and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so, all subject to the following: The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, 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." It seems to me that since derivative works must be subject to the license, any code I link with the Boost libraries would also be subject to the Boost license. Am I reading this correctly or is there a different interpretation? Thanks! Glenn
These conversations always under the AINAL disclaimer... Glenn Thorne wrote:
I want to use several of the Boost libraries in a project I'm working on and am a little concerned over a potential conflict between the website information and the Boost license language.
On the website it mentions that the license is "not viral" but the language in the Boost license states that ".. and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so, all subject to the following: The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, 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."
It seems to me that since derivative works must be subject to the license, any code I link with the Boost libraries would also be subject to the Boost license. Am I reading this correctly or is there a different interpretation?
That isn't a derivative work of Boost. That's either your own work or someone else's work. For it to be a derivative work you would have to change the Boost code. Which you could do and still not have to include the license statement as long as you *only* distribute binaries. Or more precisely if you *don't* distribute source code, or equivalent thereof. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Rene Rivera wrote:
These conversations always under the AINAL disclaimer...
Glenn Thorne wrote:
I want to use several of the Boost libraries in a project I'm working on and am a little concerned over a potential conflict between the website information and the Boost license language.
On the website it mentions that the license is "not viral" but the language in the Boost license states that ".. and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so, all subject to the following: The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, 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."
It seems to me that since derivative works must be subject to the license, any code I link with the Boost libraries would also be subject to the Boost license. Am I reading this correctly or is there a different interpretation?
That isn't a derivative work of Boost.
Yes, it is, at least as far as the GPL's understanding of derivative work goes. However, Glenn misunderstood the license. It doesn't require that your derivative work is subject to the license, merely that it includes a copy of the license text with the source code should you choose to provide that, solely for the purpose of information about the Boost part of the program. The license is in fact so permissive that your own modifications to the Boost code itself wouldn't have to be under the Boost license. (Though the original code parts would have to be, so that's useless in practice..) Sebastian Redl
"Sebastian Redl" <sebastian.redl@getdesigned.at> wrote in message news:4406A01D.6020206@getdesigned.at...
Rene Rivera wrote:
These conversations always under the AINAL disclaimer...
Glenn Thorne wrote:
It seems to me that since derivative works must be subject to the license, any code I link with the Boost libraries would also be subject to the Boost license. Am I reading this correctly or is there a different interpretation?
That isn't a derivative work of Boost.
Yes, it is, at least as far as the GPL's understanding of derivative work goes. However, Glenn misunderstood the license. It doesn't require that your derivative work is subject to the license, merely that it includes a copy of the license text with the source code should you choose to provide that, solely for the purpose of information about the Boost part of the program.
The license is in fact so permissive that your own modifications to the Boost code itself wouldn't have to be under the Boost license. (Though the original code parts would have to be, so that's useless in practice..)
Sebastian Redl
I was concerned about the definition of the term "derivative work" too. But the point about including the license instead of being subject to makes it a moot point. Thanks!
participants (8)
-
Glenn Thorne -
Rene Rivera -
Sebastian Redl