Matt Hurd wrote:
>
> >The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive license
> >right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission must
> >still be included according to the draft license.
> >This would lead to a license text like:
> <snip>
>
> I am a little confused. Like Jaarko, I read it as viral.
>
> If you produced a derivative work, or copy paste a little code, then you
> are bound to include the boost license which makes your source open as
> well...
>
> Seems akin to LGPL.
>
> Is this the intention or have I misread it?
"derivative works of the Software" != "the Software"
well... unless you work for SCO. ;-)
regards,
alexander.
--
"With SCO's announcement of upping the ante in its lawsuit against IBM
(now seeking up to $50 billion in damages), the world is in agreement
that SCO owns the world of comedy. As such, SCO is rightfully claiming
that all jokes, humor, and laugher is derived from their lawsuit with
IBM and belongs to SCO's IP. Furthermore, SCO has sent out letters to
over 1,500 well know comics, comedians, and talk show hosts indicating
that they may be infringing on SCO'c IP and may be subject to damage
claims by SCO. As all humor belongs to SCO, SCO has also sent a letter
to R. Dangerfield demanding that he stop being funny or he may face
legal action."
-- unknown
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
