[triage] Re: For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

[Zak Greant]

Hi Donovan, Greetings All,

Good morning, good evening, happy rotations where ever you are.

I'm skimming the message first.

On Sep 15, 2007, at 09:25PDT (CA), Donovan Hawkins wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Alexander Terekhov wrote (quoting SourceForge):
>
>> This project is being rejected at this time as the selected  
>> license is
>> not OSI compliant. The main point here is that the license you  
>> selected
>> does not explicitly state that that the source code may also be  
>> freely
>> distributed.
>
> That's obviously absurd. The Boost license gives you permission...

The opinion is interesting, but doesn't get to the heart of the issue  
until the end. Look way down...

> "...to use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit  
> the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software..."
>
> It then adds that you must include various notices...
>
> "...unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form  
> of machine-executable object code generated by a source language  
> processor."
>
>
> If that license is attached to source code, it seems obvious that  
> the right to distribute and prepare derivative works applies to the  
> source code. Beyond the relative absurdity of preparing derivative  
> works from executables, why would the license distinguish  
> executables if it only applied to executables?
>
>
> Of course, the FAQ makes it even more clear. From http:// 
> www.boost.org/more/license_info.html :
>
> "This license, which is very similar to the BSD license and the MIT  
> license, should satisfy the Open Source Initiative's Open Source  
> Definition: (i) the license permits free redistribution, (ii) the  
> distributed code includes source code, (iii) the license permits  
> the creation of derivative works, (iv) the license does not  
> discriminate against persons or groups, (v) the license does not  
> discriminate against fields of endeavor, (vi) the rights apply to  
> all to whom the program is redistributed, (vii) the license is not  
> specific to a product, and (viii) the license is technologically  
> neutral (i.e., it does not [require] an explicit gesture of assent  
> in order to establish a contract between licensor and licensee)."
>
>
> Apparently Boost wanted to make the license as textually short as  
> possible. For example (also from the above FAQ):
>
> "Boost's lawyers were well aware of patent provisions in licenses  
> like the GPL and CPL, and would have included such provisions in  
> the Boost license if they were believed to be legally useful."
>
>
> I don't agree with their choice (no harm in being unambigous), but  
> I don't think they left room for doubt on this being a permissive  
> open source license.
>
>
> I think the Boost license is somewhat unique in that it allows you  
> to omit notices if you only distribute the executable (an idea I  
> was planning to take for the modular permissive license I'm working  
> on).


> It is worth adding to the OSI list if that will help the confused  
> people at SourceForge.

Aha. Here is the nugget - a statement of position.

I've created a ticket for collecting this and any other message that  
supports the general approval of the Boost license:
   https://osi.osuosl.org/ticket/58

The type is set to 'issue'

The component is set to 'license approval'

I've set the body to 'The comments attached to this ticket are  
general statements of support for approving the Boost Software  
License v1.0. See ticket #45.'

I've made sure to set the keywords field to include the id of the  
parent ticket (#45) so that the macro in the parent ticket can find  
this ticket.

After saving the ticket, I've added a comment with the meat of  
Donovan's statement:


	It is worth adding to the OSI list if that will help the confused  
people at SourceForge.

Submitted by Donovan Hawkins on 2007-09-15T09:25-0700 to the license- 
discuss at opensource.org mailing list in message [license-discuss:14120]

Note: The message contains statements on why Donovan thinks that the  
license complies to the OSD along with a few snippets of background  
materials.


On to the next message.

Cheers!
--zak