For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

[Donovan Hawkins]

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...

"...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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD                 "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer                     safer than biology, for while the
hawkins at cephira.com                   hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com                biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------