2
0
mirror of https://github.com/boostorg/website.git synced 2026-01-19 04:42:17 +00:00
Files
website/users/license.html
2024-09-01 08:56:16 -07:00

378 lines
19 KiB
HTML

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>Boost Software License</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<link rel="icon" href="/favicon.ico" type="image/ico" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../style-v2/section-boost.css" />
<!--[if IE 7]> <style type="text/css"> body { behavior: url(/style-v2/csshover3.htc); } </style> <![endif]-->
<script defer data-domain="original.boost.org" src="https://plausible.io/js/script.js"></script></head><!--
Note: Editing website content is documented at:
https://www.boost.org/development/website_updating.html
-->
<body>
<div id="heading">
<!--#include virtual="/common/heading.html" -->
</div>
<div id="body">
<div id="body-inner">
<div id="content">
<div class="section" id="intro">
<div class="section-0">
<div class="section-title">
<h1>Boost Software License</h1>
</div>
<div class="section-body">
<ul class="toc">
<li><a href="../LICENSE_1_0.txt">License text</a></li>
<li><a href="#Introduction">Introduction</a></li>
<li><a href="#History">History</a></li>
<li><a href="#Rationale">Rationale</a></li>
<li><a href="#FAQ">FAQ</a></li>
<li><a href="#Transition">Transition</a></li>
<li><a href="#Acknowledgements">Acknowledgements</a></li>
</ul>
<h2><a name="Introduction" id=
"Introduction"></a>Introduction</h2>
<p>The <a href="../LICENSE_1_0.txt">Boost Software License</a>
specifies the terms and conditions of use for all Boost
libraries and tools.</p>
<h2><a name="History" id="History"></a>History</h2>
<p>As Boost grew, it became unmanageable for each Boost file to
have its own license. Users complained that each license needed
to be reviewed, and that reviews were difficult or impossible
if Boost libraries contained many different licenses. Boost
moderators and maintainers spent excessive time dealing with
license issues. Boost developers often copied existing licenses
without actually knowing if the license wording met legal
needs.</p>
<p>To clarify these licensing issues, the Boost moderators
asked for help from the <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu"
class="external">Berkman Center for Internet &amp; Society</a>
at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. <a name=
"requirements" id="requirements"></a>It was requested that a
single Boost license be developed that met the traditional
requirements that Boost licenses, particularly:</p>
<ul>
<li>Must be simple to read and understand.</li>
<li>Must grant permission without fee to copy, use and modify
the software for any use.</li>
<li>Must require that the license appear with all copies
[including redistributions] of the software source code.</li>
<li>Must not require that the license appear with executables
or other binary uses of the library.</li>
<li>Must not require that the source code be available for
execution or other binary uses of the library.</li>
</ul>
<p>Additionally, other common open source licenses were studied
to see what additional issues were being treated, and additions
representing good legal practice were also requested. The
result is the <a href="../LICENSE_1_0.txt">Boost Software
License</a>:</p>
<pre>
<!--#include virtual="../LICENSE_1_0.txt" -->
</pre>
<h2><a name="Rationale" id="Rationale"></a>Rationale</h2>
<p>The following rationale was provided by Devin Smith, the
lawyer who wrote the Boost Software License. It has been edited
slightly for brevity. Editorial additions are shown in square
brackets.</p>
<h3>Benefit of Common Software License</h3>
<p>If one of Boost's goals is to ease use and adoption of the
various libraries made available by Boost, it does make sense
to try to standardize the licenses under which the libraries
are made available to users. (I make some recommendations about
a possible short-form license below.)</p>
<p>[Standardizing the license will not] necessarily address the
issue of satisfying corporate licensees. Each corporation will
have its own concerns, based on their own experiences with
software licensing and distribution and, if they're careful,
will want to carefully review each license, even if they've
been told that they're all standard. I would expect that,
unless we're remarkably brilliant (or lucky) in drafting the
standard Boost license, the standard license won't satisfy the
legal departments of all corporations. I imagine that some
will, for instance, absolutely insist that licensors provide a
warranty of title and provide indemnification for third-party
intellectual property infringement claims. Others may want
functional warranties. (If I were advising the corporations, I
would point out that they're not paying anything for the code
and getting such warranties from individual programmers, who
probably do not have deep pockets, is not that valuable anyway,
but other lawyers may disagree.)</p>
<p>But this can be addressed, not by trying to craft the
perfect standard license, but by informing the corporations
that they can, if they don't like the standard license,
approach the authors to negotiate a different, perhaps even
paid, license.</p>
<p>One other benefit of adopting a standard license is to help
ensure that the license accomplishes, from a legal perspective,
what the authors intend. For instance, many of the [original]
licenses for the libraries available on boost.org do not
disclaim the warranty of title, meaning that the authors could,
arguably, be sued by a user if the code infringes the rights of
a third party and the user is sued by that third party. I think
the authors probably want to disclaim this kind of
liability.</p>
<h3>Short-Form License</h3>
<p>Without in anyway detracting from the draft license that's
been circulated [to Boost moderators], I'd like to propose an
alternative "short-form" license that Boost could have the
library authors adopt. David [Abrahams] has expressed a desire
to keep things as simple as possible, and to try to move away
from past practice as little as possible, and this is my
attempt at a draft.</p>
<p>This license, which is very similar to the BSD license and
the MIT license, should satisfy the Open Source Initiative's
Open Source Definition: (i) the license permits free
redistribution, (ii) the distributed code includes source code,
(iii) the license permits the creation of derivative works,
(iv) the license does not discriminate against persons or
groups, (v) the license does not discriminate against fields of
endeavor, (vi) the rights apply to all to whom the program is
redistributed, (vii) the license is not specific to a product,
and (viii) the license is technologically neutral (i.e., it
does not [require] an explicit gesture of assent in order to
establish a contract between licensor and licensee).</p>
<p>This license grants all rights under the owner's copyrights
(as well as an implied patent license), disclaims all liability
for use of the code (including intellectual property
infringement liability), and requires that all subsequent
copies of the code [except machine-executable object code],
including partial copies and derivative works, include the
license.</p>
<h2><a name="FAQ" id="FAQ"></a>FAQ</h2>
<p class="faq"><span class="faq-question">How should Boost
programmers apply the license to source and header
files?</span> <span class="faq-answer">Add a comment based on
the following template, substituting appropriate text for the
italicized portion:</span></p>
<pre>
// Copyright <i>Joe Coder 2004 - 2006</i>.
// Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
// (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
// https://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
</pre>
<p>Please leave an empty line before and after the above
comment block. It is fine if the copyright and license messages
are not on different lines; in no case there should be other
intervening text. Do not include "All rights reserved"
anywhere.</p>
<p>Other ways of licensing source files have been considered,
but some of them turned out to unintentionally nullify legal
elements of the license. Having fixed language for referring to
the license helps corporate legal departments evaluate the
boost distribution. Creativity in license reference language is
strongly discouraged, but judicious changes in the use of
whitespace are fine.</p>
<p class="faq"><span class="faq-question">How should the
license be applied to documentation files, instead?</span>
<span class="faq-answer">Very similarly to the way it is
applied to source files: the user should see the very same text
indicated in the template above, with the only difference that
both the local and the web copy of LICENSE_1_0.txt should be
linked to. Refer to the HTML source code of this page in case
of doubt.</span></p>
<p class="faq"><span class="faq-question">How should Boost
programmers maintain the copyright messages?</span>
<span class="faq-answer">Copyright is only claimed for changes
meeting a certain threshold of originality. Therefore, the copyright
message only covers expressions of creativity. It is up to authors of
changes to add themselves to the copyright message if they so decide.
Typically, new claimant is added when someone takes over maintenance
of a library or new version of an existing library is developed.
In principle, do not ever remove previous copyright claims -
just add new claims and/or claimants.</span></p>
<p class="faq"><span class="faq-question">How is the Boost
license different from the <a href=
"https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php" class=
"external">GNU General Public License (GPL)</a>?</span>
<span class="faq-answer">The Boost license permits the creation
of derivative works for any use with
no legal requirement to release your source code.</span> Other
differences include Boost not requiring reproduction of
copyright messages for object code redistribution, and the fact
that the Boost license is not "viral": if you distribute your
own code along with some Boost code, the Boost license applies
only to the Boost code (and modified versions thereof); you are
free to license your own code under any terms you like. The GPL
is also much longer, and thus may be harder to understand.</p>
<p class="faq"><span class="faq-question">Why the phrase
"machine-executable object code generated by a source language
processor"?</span> <span class="faq-answer">To distinguish
cases where we do not require reproduction of the copyrights
and license, such as object libraries, shared libraries, and
final program executables, from cases where reproduction is
still required, such as distribution of self-extracting
archives of source code or precompiled header files. More
detailed wording was rejected as not being legally necessary,
and reducing readability.</span></p>
<p class="faq"><span class="faq-question">Why is the
"disclaimer" paragraph of the license entirely in
uppercase?</span> <span class="faq-answer">Capitalization of
these particular provisions is a US legal mandate for consumer
protection. (Diane Cabell)</span></p>
<p class="faq"><span class="faq-question">Does the copyright
and license cover interfaces too?</span> <span class=
"faq-answer">The conceptual interface to a library isn't
covered. The particular representation expressed in the header
is covered, as is the documentation, examples, test programs,
and all the other material that goes with the library. A
different implementation is free to use the same logical
interface, however. Interface issues have been fought out in
court several times; ask a lawyer for details.</span></p>
<p class="faq"><span class="faq-question">Why doesn't the
license prohibit the copyright holder from patenting the
covered software?</span> <span class="faq-answer">No one who
distributes their code under the terms of this license could
turn around and sue a user for patent infringement. (Devin
Smith)</span></p>
<p>Boost's lawyers were well aware of patent provisions in
licenses like the GPL and CPL, and would have included such
provisions in the Boost license if they were believed to be
legally useful.</p>
<p class="faq"><span class="faq-question">Why doesn't the
copyright message say "All rights reserved"?</span>
<span class="faq-answer">Devin Smith says "I don't think it
belongs in the copyright notice for anything (software,
electronic documentation, etc.) that is being licensed. It
belongs in books that are sold where, in fact, all rights
(e.g., to reproduce the book, etc.) are being reserved in the
publisher or author. I think it shouldn't be in the BSD
license."</span></p>
<p class="faq"><span class="faq-question">Do I have to
copyright/license trivial files?</span> <span class=
"faq-answer">Even a test file that just contains an empty
<code>main()</code> should have a copyright. Files without
copyrights make corporate lawyers nervous, and that's a barrier
to adoption. The more of Boost is uniformly copyrighted and
licensed, the less problem people will have with mounting a
Boost release CD on a corporate server.</span></p>
<p class="faq"><span class="faq-question">Can I use the Boost
license for my own projects outside Boost?</span> <span class=
"faq-answer">Sure; there are no restrictions on the use of the
license itself.</span></p>
<p class="faq"><a href=
"https://opensource.org/docs/definition.php"><img src=
"https://opensource.org/trademarks/opensource/web/opensource-110x95.png"
alt="Open Source (OSI) Logo" class=
"inset-right" /></a><span class="faq-question">Is the Boost
license "<a href="https://opensource.org/docs/osd" class=
"external">Open Source</a>"?</span> <span class=
"faq-answer">Yes. The <a href="https://opensource.org/"
class="external">Open Source Initiative</a> certified the
<a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/bsl1.0.html" class=
"external">Boost Software License 1.0</a> in early
2008.</span></p>
<h2><a name="Transition" id="Transition"></a>Transition</h2>
<p>To ease the transition of the code base towards the new
common license, several people decided to give a <a href=
"/doc/libs/release/more/blanket-permission.txt">blanket
permission</a> for all their contributions to use the new
license. This hopefully helps maintainers to switch to the new
license once the list contains enough names without asking over
and over again for each change. Please consider adding your
name to the list.</p>
<h2><a name="Acknowledgements" id=
"Acknowledgements"></a>Acknowledgements</h2>
<p>Dave Abrahams led the Boost effort to develop better
licensing. The legal team was led by <a href=
"https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/dcabell" class=
"external">Diane Cabell</a>, Director, Clinical Programs,
<a href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/" class=
"external">Berkman Center for Internet &amp; Society</a>,
Harvard Law School. Devin Smith, attorney, <a href=
"https://www.nixonpeabody.com/" class="external">Nixon Peabody
LLP</a>, wrote the Boost License. Eva Chan, Harvard Law School,
contributed analysis of Boost issues and drafts of various
legal documents. Boost members reviewed drafts of the license.
Beman Dawes wrote this web page.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="sidebar">
<!--#include virtual="/common/sidebar-common.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/common/sidebar-boost.html" -->
</div>
<div class="clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="footer">
<div id="footer-left">
<div id="revised">
<p>Revised $Date$</p>
</div>
<div id="copyright">
<p>Copyright Beman Dawes, Daniel Frey, David Abrahams, 2003-2004.</p>
<p>Copyright Rene Rivera 2004-2005.</p>
</div><!--#include virtual="/common/footer-license.html" -->
</div>
<div id="footer-right">
<!--#include virtual="/common/footer-banners.html" -->
</div>
<div class="clear"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>