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

[Alexander Terekhov]

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.

>
>  > 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. :-)

I also have no interest in using your trademark. 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.

> 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.

>
> Basically, you're asking me to do your homework.

Why can't you do boost.org same favor as gnu.org?

Just curious.

-------
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.
-------

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