"Roman D. Boiko" <r...@d-coding.com> wrote in message news:gyhkcrhkaedsjzooh...@forum.dlang.org... > > Motivation for Boost would be reducing the number of licenses that the > code author must know. Also, here are some differences between these > licenses, which I consider as Boost advantages: >
MIT's *much* easier to understand though. Boost has some real goofy, obfuscated wordings. Although it's *worlds* better in that regard than the completely impenatrable GPL or Creative Commons. > "The Boost Software License is based upon the MIT license, but differs > from the MIT license in that it: > > (i) makes clear that licenses can be granted to organizations as well as > individuals; > > (ii) does not require that the license appear with executables or other > binary uses of the library; > My favorite license, zlib ( http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Zlib ) doesn't have this #2 issue, and it's even easier to read and understand than MIT. Plus it doesn't say anything like "to any person", so it should take care of #1, too. (Although personally, I think I like MIT better in that regard: It's a deterrent against corporations, which gives it a little bit of the benefit of the GPL, but without all the bullshit.) > (iii) expressly disclaims -- on behalf of the author and copyright holders > of the software only -- the warranty of title (a warranty that, under the > Uniform Commercial Code, is separate from the warranty of > non-infringement) > > (iv) does not extend the disclaimer of warranties to licensees, so that > they may, if they choose, undertake such warranties (e.g., in exchange for > payment)." > > http://ideas.opensource.org/ticket/45