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

[Zak Greant]

Greetings Alexander, Greetings All,

On Sep 25, 2007, at 02:06PDT (CA), Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> On 9/25/07, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>> Nor this is a structured approval request conforming to whatever  
>>> rules
>>> you might have at the moment.
>>
>> Okay, since you have told me not to, I won't include your license in
>> the next committee report.
>
> That's of course up to you, but that's not what I've told you.

Issue already captured - not explicitly, but close enough.

>>> Show initiative, OSI board.
>>
>> The world doesn't need your license approved.  You need your license
>> approved so that you may use our trademark.  If you choose not to do
>
> Tell it to RMS and Eben. :-)

Not relevant.

> I also have no interest in using your trademark.

Not relevant.

> And as for boost.org...
>
> 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).
>
> This license grants all rights under the owner's copyrights (as well
> as an implied patent license), disclaims all liability for use of the
> code (including intellectual property infringement liability), and
> requires that all subsequent copies of the code [except
> machine-executable object code], including partial copies and
> derivative works, include the license.
> -------
>
> says it all.

Nothing material here for the purpose of this discussion or for the  
other related issues ticketed.

>> that, then that is your choice.  *I* don't need to show initiative;
>> you do.  That's why those requirements are there -- to reduce license
>> proliferation.  Martin Fink no doubt believes that he set OSI on the
>> course of reducing license proliferation, but we were doing it years
>> before he ever noticed it was a problem.
>
> But you simply can't reduce license proliferation. People will
> continue to use boost irrespective of your comical approval process.

Not material for the purpose of this discussion.

>> Basically, you're asking me to do your homework.
>
> Why can't you do boost.org same favor as gnu.org?
>
> Just curious.

Nothing to be ticketed for this discussion.

> -------
> How is the Boost license different from the GNU General Public  
> License (GPL)?
>
> The Boost license permits the creation of derivative works for
> commercial or non-commercial use with no legal requirement to release
> your source code. Other differences include Boost not requiring
> reproduction of copyright messages for object code redistribution, and
> the fact that the Boost license is not "viral": if you distribute your
> own code along with some Boost code, the Boost license applies only to
> the Boost code (and modified versions thereof); you are free to
> license your own code under any terms you like. The GPL is also much
> longer, and thus may be harder to understand.
> -------

Nothing to ticket here.


Cheers!
--zak