>... > >In reading the license, I think the definition of "Software" needs to be >broadened to explicitly include the documentation, test suites, etc. >see: >http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php for an example.
I'll pass that on to the lawyers. I'm making a list of issues to ask them about.
> Additionally, the BSD license goes into even more detail >with respect to software, binaries, etc. > >I feel that it's good to have a human-readable license, but it >seems more pressing to ensure proper coverage of the legal issues, even >if it means that the license gets a little longer. In this specific >case where the license will (hopefully) cover much of Boost, I >presume that it will be placed in the distribution and all files covered >mentioned by reference. In that case, it seems fine to me for the >license to be longer and more explicit.
One of the worries the lawyers express over longer licenses is that more verbiage offers an opposing lawyer more opportunity to find a loophole.
Notice that the new license is sometimes referred to as the "short-form" license. There was another proposed license first, which was longer. In the end, the senior lawyers preferred the shorter license. There was also explicit discussion (and a write-up) on some of the other common licenses, such as BSD. It would have been a lot easier for these legal folks to just say "use the BSD" license. The reason they went to considerable trouble to research and then write a specific Boost license is that they believe it will do a better job for Boost than other OSI licenses.
Thanks,
--Beman
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
