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

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/15/07, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> Donovan Hawkins scripsit:
>
> > 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?
>
> I'd say that the problem with this license is that it does not
> (probably inadvertently) grant the right to distribute derivative
> works.  Arguably, this right is not necessary, as derivative works
> belong to the deriver, but it's good to spell it out.

Derivative works belong to both "deriver" and original copyright owner
(if any, (s) for both). Original copyright owner still owns remaining
protected elements taken from preexisting work and there is no such
thing as "a whole" regarding copyright on derivative works. But once
an original copyright owner grants you the right to prepare (software)
derivative works (i.e. you've got the right going beyond the statutory
right to prepare private derivative works under 17 USC 117), the right
to distribute copies of said derivative works is provided by 17 USC
109. No additional permission is needed. The license contract can
restrict that default right, of course.

regards,
alexander.

--
"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