For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003
alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Sat Sep 15 14:23:01 UTC 2007
This is not a troll.
Nor this is a structured approval request conforming to whatever rules
you might have at the moment. Show initiative, OSI board.
The reason for this "For Approval" request is this:
As a hobby project, I've been fiddling with a ref-counted C++ string
"mostly constant time" class with Boost license, <url:
home.no.net/alfps/cpp/lib/alfs_v06.zip>; Boost license because I gather
that most C++ practitioners are familiar with Boost and can feel safe
with that license -- no more hidden legal traps than we so far have
had the impression that using Boost has.
Now I thought I'd put that project on SourceForge, mainly to gain some
experience with open source development. Also, perhaps others could
then participate. But it was rejected due to the Boost license, which
apparently does not permit distribution of the source code!
Quoting the SourceForge project rejection:
Current status: Rejected by SF.net
Review comment: Greetings,
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
I recommend that you select a different license, the BSD license may be
more along the lines you seek, and resubmit this project request. We
will approve it at that time if you select that license or other similar
such OSI compliant license.
Daniel Hinojosa - Sr. Manager Support, SourceForge.net
Checking... Sure enough, there's no Boost license in the OSI list, at
<url: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical>. And this
license is a few years old. If it was OK as open source, presumably it
would be in the OSI list by now?
Since OSI doesn't recognize the Boost license as open source, are all we
who have simply downloaded and installed the Boost library in source
code form, not paying a penny, in violation of Boost's license?
Or should we not use the Boost license for open source C++ code?
Cheers (scratching his head),
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
-- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor
More information about the License-discuss