Re: [boost] Re: Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Ed Brey wrote: > Peter Dimov wrote: >> >> I'd like also to point out that it seems to me that the old "in all >> copies" form is better than the new one; the legal system is >> sufficiently flexible >> to reliably recognize a "copy" (i.e. a password protected RAR archive >> of an mp3 encoded song). The new wording seems to allow >> self-extracting archives of "the Software" to not carry the license. > > To elaborate on this point, allow me to present two specific use > cases to clarify the potential loopholes, both arising from the > clause "unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form > of machine-executable object code generated by a source language > processor." > > * Suppose I create a product containing executables that make use of > compiled boost libraries (only - no uncompiled boost source). I > consider the CD and its content to be the "work" and I copyright it > as such. It is a work derived from the Software (Boost license > definition). Suppose the CD contains a plain text readme file. The > derivative work is not /solely/ in the form of object code. > Technically, I would have to include the boost copyright info, even > though that is not the intent of the license. > > * Although "language" by definition represents expression with > constraining rules restricting valid combinations of input, it is > well established that computer languages make provision for > encapsulating of unconstrained binary data. Suppose I create a C++ > program whose sole purpose is to create a file containing a > significant portion of boost source code. My program contains a long > C string which is the boost source code. Once I compile the C++ code > into object code, I meet the exception, and don't need to include the > copyright info, which is contrary to the intent of the license. Yep. It is my understanding that our "original" license uses the following implicit definition of "copy": A copy of a copyrighted work can be used to recover, display or perform the original work. This seems to cover your two examples. The CD cannot be used to recover the Boost source, the program can. ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Peter Dimov wrote: > > I'd like also to point out that it seems to me that the old "in all > copies" form is better than the new one; the legal system is > sufficiently flexible > to reliably recognize a "copy" (i.e. a password protected RAR archive > of an mp3 encoded song). The new wording seems to allow > self-extracting archives of "the Software" to not carry the license. To elaborate on this point, allow me to present two specific use cases to clarify the potential loopholes, both arising from the clause "unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor." * Suppose I create a product containing executables that make use of compiled boost libraries (only - no uncompiled boost source). I consider the CD and its content to be the "work" and I copyright it as such. It is a work derived from the Software (Boost license definition). Suppose the CD contains a plain text readme file. The derivative work is not /solely/ in the form of object code. Technically, I would have to include the boost copyright info, even though that is not the intent of the license. * Although "language" by definition represents expression with constraining rules restricting valid combinations of input, it is well established that computer languages make provision for encapsulating of unconstrained binary data. Suppose I create a C++ program whose sole purpose is to create a file containing a significant portion of boost source code. My program contains a long C string which is the boost source code. Once I compile the C++ code into object code, I meet the exception, and don't need to include the copyright info, which is contrary to the intent of the license. I think both problems (assuming they are real problems) can be solved by clarifying that exception clause to be something link this: "unless all portions (and only those portions) of the work strictly derived from the Software are translated from their source language into machine-executable object code." The lawyers can probably get the right wording to clarify the intent that you don't have to compile your own content, but you do need to compile the boost content. One final point: I would argue that "unless such copies or derivative works" can become "unless such derivative works", since a direct copy will retain the existing copyright and not need the exception clause, and any change to the copyright will cause the work to be a derivative, not a copy. (I'm not well versed, however, on exactly where the dividing line between a "copy" and a derived work is drawn.) (Insert "this is a layman talking" disclaimer here.) Ed ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
At 06:22 PM 6/25/2003, Joel de Guzman wrote: >Andreas Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >|| What about html files? Are they considered to be under >|| the "the Software" umbrella? Html or any other form of >|| electronic documentation can be seen as software but you >|| could just as well argue that it's only data (which >|| AFAICT would not fall under the license then). > >Software can be purely data, right? The documentation >IMO, should be part of "the Software". It is all part of "the Software" if I understand correctly, but I've also already added the concern to the issues list for the lawyers. Thanks, --Beman ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Andreas Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: || What about html files? Are they considered to be under || the "the Software" umbrella? Html or any other form of || electronic documentation can be seen as software but you || could just as well argue that it's only data (which || AFAICT would not fall under the license then). Software can be purely data, right? The documentation IMO, should be part of "the Software". || BTW, I (German mother-tongue) agree with Rene that the || long sentences are a bit difficult to grasp. However, I || don't care that much as long as it's legally || bullet-proof. I agree. Kudos to Dave Abrahams, Diane Cabell, Devin Smith, and Eva Chen! Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman joel at boost-consulting.com http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman, Thanks for your work on this. Looks good to me. One minor thing: > No change from the current status. If your project does not > redistribute Boost source code, you don't have to redistribute the > license, regardless > of how much non-Boost source code is redistributed. > > Hope that helps, What about html files? Are they considered to be under the "the Software" umbrella? Html or any other form of electronic documentation can be seen as software but you could just as well argue that it's only data (which AFAICT would not fall under the license then). BTW, I (German mother-tongue) agree with Rene that the long sentences are a bit difficult to grasp. However, I don't care that much as long as it's legally bullet-proof. Thanks & Regards, Andreas ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
