Boost licensing information

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
44 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 13/04/2017 00:04, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> If the steering committee might be thinking of fixing the BSL, better to
>> adopt the Apache 2.0 licence
>>
>
> Also not compatible with the BSL.

The BSL is compatible with the GPL, so I find it very hard to believe
that Apache 2.0 is incompatible.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses

Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

Niall


--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 04/13/17 10:12, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

> On 13/04/2017 00:04, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> If the steering committee might be thinking of fixing the BSL, better to
>>> adopt the Apache 2.0 licence
>>>
>>
>> Also not compatible with the BSL.
>
> The BSL is compatible with the GPL, so I find it very hard to believe
> that Apache 2.0 is incompatible.
>
> Source:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses
>
> Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

I believe it is more correct to say Apache 2.0 does not meet Boost
requirements to the license in that it is more restrictive than the BSL.
In particular, BSL has no requirements similar to those in Apache 2.0
[1] Section 4 item b.

Also, unlike BSL, Apache 2.0 is not compatible with GPLv2, only GPLv3,
which is not as popular.

The boilerplate comment that is recommended to be used to apply the
license, and the license itself, are significantly longer than those of
BSL. I'll remind that this thread has started from someone having
difficulty reading and understanding the BSL, and Apache 2.0 is not
likely to improve on that.

[1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list

>> The BSL is compatible with the GPL, so I find it very hard to believe
>> that Apache 2.0 is incompatible.
>>
>> Source:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses 
>>
>>
>> Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
>
> I believe it is more correct to say Apache 2.0 does not meet Boost
> requirements to the license in that it is more restrictive than the
> BSL. In particular, BSL has no requirements similar to those in Apache
> 2.0 [1] Section 4 item b.
>
> Also, unlike BSL, Apache 2.0 is not compatible with GPLv2, only GPLv3,
> which is not as popular.
>
> The boilerplate comment that is recommended to be used to apply the
> license, and the license itself, are significantly longer than those
> of BSL. I'll remind that this thread has started from someone having
> difficulty reading and understanding the BSL, and Apache 2.0 is not
> likely to improve on that.
>
> [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>

Irrespective of the merits of the various licences, I would remind
everyone that it took us the better part of 2 years last time we changed
licences... and Boost has grown immeasurably larger since then.   I am
emphatically not going to take on that task again, if someone else wants
to volunteer, I can only wish them good luck - they will most certainly
need it!

Best, John.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 04/13/17 01:55, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>
> The biggest objection I
> always heard from Legal(s) was patent threat, and the BSL says
> absolutely zero about patents.
>
> You may notice all the v2.0 revisions of major open source licences do
> now say something about patents. That's why.

Having a section regarding patents in the license implies that the
author is supposed to perform a research on possible patent
infringement. Otherwise he might be giving a license to patents he
doesn't own. I'd say most of the Boost contributors don't have the
resources or will to conduct such research, so this task is upon users
(more presicely, those users who act in jurisdictions that recognize
software patents).

Pretty much the same goes for trademarks.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
> I believe it is more correct to say Apache 2.0 does not meet Boost
> requirements to the license in that it is more restrictive than the BSL.
> In particular, BSL has no requirements similar to those in Apache 2.0
> [1] Section 4 item b.

It is correct that Apache 2.0 licence imposes more requirements. That's
its merit over the BSL.

> Also, unlike BSL, Apache 2.0 is not compatible with GPLv2, only GPLv3,
> which is not as popular.

Correct.

> The boilerplate comment that is recommended to be used to apply the
> license, and the license itself, are significantly longer than those of
> BSL. I'll remind that this thread has started from someone having
> difficulty reading and understanding the BSL, and Apache 2.0 is not
> likely to improve on that.

You are allowed to, and indeed encouraged to, provide just a URL to the
licence text. Besides, Apache 2.0 is a very popular and well understood
licence. You don't need a large boilerplate, unlike the relatively
unknown BSL.

Niall

--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
> Irrespective of the merits of the various licences, I would remind
> everyone that it took us the better part of 2 years last time we changed
> licences... and Boost has grown immeasurably larger since then.   I am
> emphatically not going to take on that task again, if someone else wants
> to volunteer, I can only wish them good luck - they will most certainly
> need it!

New libraries can be licensed under improved licences so long as they
are compatible with the Boost licence and meet the licence requirements
at http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html.

Niall

--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
>> The biggest objection I
>> always heard from Legal(s) was patent threat, and the BSL says
>> absolutely zero about patents.
>>
>> You may notice all the v2.0 revisions of major open source licences do
>> now say something about patents. That's why.
>
> Having a section regarding patents in the license implies that the
> author is supposed to perform a research on possible patent
> infringement.

Completely incorrect.

Under Apache 2.0, contributors give a licence to licensees to use any
patents the *contributor* holds. This is exactly the clause that
Corporate Legal wants to see, and what the BSL lacks. Without it, it
allows bait-and-sue on code because say someone like you Andrey could
deliberate contribute code to Boost violating a software patent you
hold. You then wait for people to use your patented code in Boost. You
then sue them for patent violation.

That's why Legal doesn't like the Boost Software Licence. It's an open
season to getting sued for patent violation in those countries where
software patents are a thing (in most of the world they are not
enforceable).

If on the other hand (new, standalone) Boost libraries were under Apache
2.0, Corporate Legal would more readily approve the use of such
libraries in proprietary code.

> Pretty much the same goes for trademarks.

Apache 2.0 allows you to use other people's trademarks so long as you
acknowledge they belong to those other people. You cannot appropriate
another's trademark for yourself. Which is the whole point of a trademark.

Niall

--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Apr 12, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Gavin Lambert via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:

> To most users of the Boost libraries, it doesn't make any difference either way -- they either distribute the libraries in compiled form, which the BSL permits without complications, or they distribute their own library/application in source form typically without redistributing the Boost libraries themselves (instead just telling people where to find them or expecting that they'll be able to find them themselves).
>
> The latter approach might technically get them in trouble with their own licenses (eg. if they're using GPL) but most people don't worry about that either.

Not even technically.  Authors who license their own code under the GPL are not bound by the GPL with respect to that code.  An author is allowed to offer anything under the terms of the GPL, including a program that links to a binary-only library that you have to pay to use -- although nobody else would be legally allowed to redistribute it, due to being unable to fulfill the terms of the GPL.

Josh


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 04/13/17 13:40, Josh Juran via Boost wrote:
>
> Authors who license their own code under the
> GPL are not bound by the GPL with respect to that code.  An author is
> allowed to offer anything under the terms of the GPL, including a
> program that links to a binary-only library...

That's not my reading of the GPL. According to Section 6 [1], everyone,
including the author, must provide source code of the (derived) work as
part of distribution, which is not possible if the work contains a
binary-only component.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 04/13/17 10:12, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2017 00:04, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> If the steering committee might be thinking of fixing the BSL, better to
>>>> adopt the Apache 2.0 licence
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Also not compatible with the BSL.
>>>
>>
>> The BSL is compatible with the GPL, so I find it very hard to believe
>> that Apache 2.0 is incompatible.
>>
>> Source:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so
>> urce_software_licenses
>>
>> Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
>>
>
> I believe it is more correct to say Apache 2.0 does not meet Boost
> requirements to the license in that it is more restrictive than the BSL. In
> particular, BSL has no requirements similar to those in Apache 2.0 [1]
> Section 4 item b.
>

Sorry, yes, it's more accurate to say the APL doesn't meet Boost licensing
requirements. And it's not just 4.b, it's 4.a also. As both apply to
"Object form" redistribution. There's a good reason why you see
considerably more commercial products use Boost and not other OSS libraries.

--
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Irrespective of the merits of the various licences, I would remind
> > everyone that it took us the better part of 2 years last time we changed
> > licences... and Boost has grown immeasurably larger since then.   I am
> > emphatically not going to take on that task again, if someone else wants
> > to volunteer, I can only wish them good luck - they will most certainly
> > need it!
>
> New libraries can be licensed under improved licences so long as they
> are compatible with the Boost licence and meet the licence requirements
> at http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html.
>

Good point indeed.. But so far in this thread non of the licenses mentioned
meet those requirements. Perhaps someone, with legal acumen, could go the
OSS licenses <https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical> and indicate
which ones meet the Boost requirements.

--
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Sorry for top-post, but this is to this discussion in general, not to Andrey in particular.  If there is a need and interest, may I suggest to carry this discussion elsewhere, possibly starting with a new topic on the boost list.  This discussion has drifted far off-topic with regard to the OP question and I am concerned direct responses to the original question was somewhat unclear.

To my understanding, the BSL clearly is intended to, and likely meets the OP’s needs to use Boost code in a closed source project. As always such an answer to users should be given with the disclaimer that users should check themselves how the BSL apply to their needs, their business, their project, and local laws.  But it is hard to imagine there should be any real need for concern about issues stemming from Boost code or the BSL in this case.  

To combat confusion about the BSL, answers to these kind of questions need to be as simple as they surely are.  Having them leading to off-topic discussions like this is not helping anyone.  As it stands in my experience, BSL is an excellent license for Boost and its users. I see no need to change licensing in Boost.  


Bjørn


> On 13 Apr 2017, at 13:10, Andrey Semashev via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 04/13/17 13:40, Josh Juran via Boost wrote:
>>
>> Authors who license their own code under the
>> GPL are not bound by the GPL with respect to that code.  An author is
>> allowed to offer anything under the terms of the GPL, including a
>> program that links to a binary-only library...
>
> That's not my reading of the GPL. According to Section 6 [1], everyone, including the author, must provide source code of the (derived) work as part of distribution, which is not possible if the work contains a binary-only component.
>
> [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Niall Douglas wrote:

> Without it, it allows bait-and-sue on code because say someone like you
> Andrey could deliberate contribute code to Boost violating a software
> patent you hold. You then wait for people to use your patented code in
> Boost. You then sue them for patent violation.

Has this ever occurred? Because the license clearly states that the owner
grants a right to use, and defending in court the proposition that this
grant somehow only applies for use in a copyright sense but not for use in a
patent sense (as if there's a difference) will be an interesting exercise.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Niall Douglas wrote:

> New libraries can be licensed under improved licences so long as they are
> compatible with the Boost licence and meet the licence requirements at
> http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html.

Hypothetically, yes. In practice, no. If it's not BSL, it's not going into
Boost.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 04/13/17 17:04, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Niall Douglas wrote:
>
>> New libraries can be licensed under improved licences so long as they
>> are compatible with the Boost licence and meet the licence
>> requirements at http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html.
>
> Hypothetically, yes. In practice, no. If it's not BSL, it's not going
> into Boost.

I agree with this sentiment. In fact, why not spell it explicitly on the
web site?


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
>> New libraries can be licensed under improved licences so long as they
>> are compatible with the Boost licence and meet the licence
>> requirements at http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html.
>
> Hypothetically, yes. In practice, no. If it's not BSL, it's not going
> into Boost.

That's a pretty arrogant statement.

It's down to the review manager in question at the time of review.
Unless you're the review manager, your vote is just one of many considered.

Niall

--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 13/04/2017 15:06, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Because the license clearly states that the
> owner grants a right to use, and defending in court the proposition that
> this grant somehow only applies for use in a copyright sense but not for
> use in a patent sense (as if there's a difference) will be an
> interesting exercise.

I would never second guess a clever lawyer.

The point being made is not whether any licence is enforceable in court.
Most have never really been tested in a court, even the GPL. It is about
risk minimisation to a lawyer, and persuading Corporate Lawyers that the
licence on some bit of open source is minimum risk or not.

I have seen no persuasive argument that the BSL is perceived as less
legal risk to lawyers than the Apache 2.0. From all my interaction with
Corporate Legal departments over the years, never mind trying to get
Professional Indemnity insurance for works covered by the BSL as against
a better known licence (tl;dr forget about it, they won't insure BSL
licenced code, at least in Europe), I am very sure that the Apache 2.0
is a safer, more acceptable, more inclusive, more commercially friendly
licence than the BSL.

New Boost libraries should as a minimum, use the Apache 2.0 licence in
preference to the Boost licence. Period.

Niall

--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 4/13/17 08:49, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

>>> New libraries can be licensed under improved licences so long as they
>>> are compatible with the Boost licence and meet the licence
>>> requirements at http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html.
>>
>> Hypothetically, yes. In practice, no. If it's not BSL, it's not going
>> into Boost.
>
> That's a pretty arrogant statement.
>
> It's down to the review manager in question at the time of review.
> Unless you're the review manager, your vote is just one of many considered.
>
> Niall
>

It is significantly more complicated than that. If it isn't BSL it would
need to be reviewed by SFC's counsel and we would need to weigh the
benefits over the confusion.

--
Michael Caisse
Ciere Consulting
ciere.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
>
> > That's a pretty arrogant statement.
> >
> > It's down to the review manager in question at the time of review.
> > Unless you're the review manager, your vote is just one of many
> considered.
> >
> > Niall
> >
>
> It is significantly more complicated than that. If it isn't BSL it would
> need to be reviewed by SFC's counsel and we would need to weigh the
> benefits over the confusion.
>
>
From my point of view, as a boost user at a company, I can tell you that if
boost had different licenses on different libraries, that would be a
problem for me. It is extremely handy that we can be confident that all of
the code in the boost distribution is under a common license.

If a particular library wants to be dual licensed, that's probably fine,
but one of those licenses had better be BSL.

-- chris

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list


On 13/04/2017 11:29, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>> Irrespective of the merits of the various licences, I would remind
>> everyone that it took us the better part of 2 years last time we changed
>> licences... and Boost has grown immeasurably larger since then.   I am
>> emphatically not going to take on that task again, if someone else wants
>> to volunteer, I can only wish them good luck - they will most certainly
>> need it!
> New libraries can be licensed under improved licences so long as they
> are compatible with the Boost licence and meet the licence requirements
> at http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html.

That's only sort of true - if those libraries have dependencies then
users are now left having to understand *both* the "new" and the "old"
licence, which is hardly an improvement.  On the other hand if they have
no dependencies, then there is nothing to prevent you from dual licensing.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
123
Loading...