Any libraries now not under the Boost Software License?

[David Abrahams]

http://boost.org/more/license_info.html says:

  Currently, some Boost libraries have their own licenses. The hope is
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  that eventually all Boost libraries will be covered by the Boost
  Software License. In the meantime, all libraries comply with the
  Boost License requirements.

Is that still true now that we have Threads under the BSL?

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com

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

[Janek Kozicki]

David Abrahams said:     (by the date of Tue, 22 May 2007 17:16:28 -0400)

> Is that still true now that we have Threads under the BSL?

yes. I remember a post a while ago that the original author decided to
relicense threads to BSL.

--
Janek Kozicki                                                         |
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Rene Rivera-2]

Janek Kozicki wrote:
> David Abrahams said:     (by the date of Tue, 22 May 2007 17:16:28 -0400)
>
>> Is that still true now that we have Threads under the BSL?
>
> yes. I remember a post a while ago that the original author decided to
> relicense threads to BSL.

I think you just answered with a non-answer ;-)


--
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Janek Kozicki]

Rene Rivera said:     (by the date of Tue, 22 May 2007 23:41:39 -0500)

> Janek Kozicki wrote:
> > David Abrahams said:     (by the date of Tue, 22 May 2007 17:16:28 -0400)
> >
> >> Is that still true now that we have Threads under the BSL?
> >
> > yes. I remember a post a while ago that the original author decided to
> > relicense threads to BSL.
>
> I think you just answered with a non-answer ;-)


OK, I'm sorry too much haste. I took time to grep my archive, and
then google it in webarchive by title:

"Permission given to change to Boost.License"

http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2006/09/110143.php

But I see, the question was "Is that STILL true" ...

well I don't know if it's still true. I pay some attention to thread
related posts on this list, and since that one post I remember nothing
about revoking this permission.

--
Janek Kozicki                                                         |
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Martin Bonner-2]

----Original Message----
From: boost-bounces@...
[mailto:boost-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Janek Kozicki Sent:
23 May 2007 06:44 To: boost@...
Subject: Re: [boost] Any libraries now not under the Boost Software
License?

> Rene Rivera said:     (by the date of Tue, 22 May 2007 23:41:39 -0500)
>
>> Janek Kozicki wrote:
>>> David Abrahams said:     (by the date of Tue, 22 May 2007 17:16:28
>>> -0400)
>>>
>>>> Is that still true now that we have Threads under the BSL?
>>>
>>> yes. I remember a post a while ago that the original author decided
>>> to relicense threads to BSL.
>>
>> I think you just answered with a non-answer ;-)
>
>
> OK, I'm sorry too much haste. I took time to grep my archive, and
> then google it in webarchive by title:
>
> "Permission given to change to Boost.License"
>
> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2006/09/110143.php
>
> But I see, the question was "Is that STILL true" ...
>
> well I don't know if it's still true. I pay some attention to thread
> related posts on this list, and since that one post I remember nothing
> about revoking this permission.

You have misunderstood the question completely.  It is not:
        Is Threads under the BSL?
(we know the answer to that is "Yes".)  

The question is:
        Are there any /other/ libraries that are not under the BSL?

If the answer to that question is "No", then the statement:
        Currently, some Boost libraries have their own licenses.
is obviously false, and we can tidy up the licensing page (which will
make some corporate lawyers happy).

--

Martin Bonner
Project Leader

PI SHURLOK LTD
Telephone: [phone] / 203894 (direct)
Fax: [phone]
Email: martin.bonner@...
www.pi-shurlok.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Janek Kozicki]

Martin Bonner said:     (by the date of Wed, 23 May 2007 09:20:31 +0100)

> You have misunderstood the question completely.  It is not:
> Is Threads under the BSL?
> (we know the answer to that is "Yes".)  
>
> The question is:
> Are there any /other/ libraries that are not under the BSL?
>
> If the answer to that question is "No", then the statement:
> Currently, some Boost libraries have their own licenses.
> is obviously false, and we can tidy up the licensing page (which will
> make some corporate lawyers happy).

Oops, sorry again. So since I started answering to this thread I
should finish it with the right answer ;)

I did a check in CVS-HEAD. With midnight commander and it's
quick-view feature I was able to browse the files pretty quickly.
Less than second for each file (of course longer if I didn't spot the
license term).

So I checked every file, but still - it was a rather quick 'human eyes'
search. So I might have not spotted something.



But here's what I've found:


1. all the files in /boost/numeric/ublas have following license:

//  Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software
//  and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
//  provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and
//  that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear
//  in supporting documentation.  The authors make no representations
//  about the suitability of this software for any purpose.
//  It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.

  So it is not a BSL !

2. the files /boost/graph/kolmogorov_max_flow.hpp and
/boost/graph/write_dimacs.hpp have two licenses, one of which is BSL,
in case if that matters.

3. boost/interprocess/detail/atomic.hpp uses Apache license *AND* BSL, weird !

4. boost/interprocess/detail/config_begin.hpp and config_end.hpp have no license

5. information in boost/interprocess/sync/interprocess_recursive_mutex.hpp
about license is obsolete because W.Kempf granted BSL for his code.

6. boost/math/common_factor_rt.hpp nas no BSL license:

//  (C) Copyright Daryle Walker and Paul Moore 2001-2002.  Permission to copy,
//  use, modify, sell and distribute this software is granted provided this
//  copyright notice appears in all copies. This software is provided "as is"
//  without express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to its suitability
//  for any purpose.

7. boost/multi_array/algorithm.hpp is not clear, but maybe it's correct ?
   there are also two files with this notice in multi_array_detail. But I guess it's OK

8. boost/program_options/detail/utf8_codecvt_facet.hpp doesn't have BSL:

// Copyright Š 2001 Ronald Garcia, Indiana University (garcia@...)
// Andrew Lumsdaine, Indiana University (lums@...). Permission to copy,
// use, modify, sell and distribute this software is granted provided this
// copyright notice appears in all copies. This software is provided "as is"
// without express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to its suitability
// for any purpose.

9. boost/python/detail/python22_fixed.h has boostinspect:nolicense So
I guess it's OK with the:

   Copyright (c) 2001, 2002 Python Software Foundation; All Rights Reserved

10. boost/test/included/unit_test_framework.hpp has no license

11. boost/test/utils/runtime/cla/detail/argument_value_usage.hpp has no BSL:

//  (C) Copyright Gennadiy Rozental 2005.
//  Permission to copy, use, modify, sell and distribute this software
//  is granted provided this copyright notice appears in all copies.
//  This software is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty,
//  and with no claim as to its suitability for any purpose.          


12. boost/rational.hpp has no license

13. boost/shared_container_iterator.hpp doesn't have BSL:

// (C) Copyright Ronald Garcia 2002. Permission to copy, use, modify, sell and
// distribute this software is granted provided this copyright notice appears
// in all copies. This software is provided "as is" without express or implied                  
// warranty, and with no claim as to its suitability for any purpose.



Whew. That's it. Took me one and a half an hour. Hope this helps.


Based on above research I could tell that only boost::ublas doesn't
have BSL, while all the other files are simply a mistake that can be
quickly corrected...


best regards
--
Janek Kozicki                                                         |
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[John Maddock]

Janek Kozicki wrote:
> Whew. That's it. Took me one and a half an hour. Hope this helps.
>
>
> Based on above research I could tell that only boost::ublas doesn't
> have BSL, while all the other files are simply a mistake that can be
> quickly corrected...

Thanks for looking into this: I guess it's too late to tell you that the bcp
tool can produce a HTML license report in a couple of seconds....!

Looks like we still have a bit of chasing up to do on the license front.

John.

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

[Henrik Sundberg]

2007/5/23, John Maddock <john@...>:
> Looks like we still have a bit of chasing up to do on the license front.


The latest (and as long as I've seen them) Boost inspection
notification (2007-05-23/RC_1_34_0) *LC* contains:

Problem counts:
 661 files missing Boost license info or having wrong reference text
 398 files missing copyright notice

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

[Janek Kozicki]

John Maddock said:     (by the date of Wed, 23 May 2007 17:16:55 +0100)

> Thanks for looking into this: I guess it's too late to tell you that the bcp
> tool can produce a HTML license report in a couple of seconds....!
>
> Looks like we still have a bit of chasing up to do on the license front.

Oh, I knew that :)

But OTOH nothing can really beat a human in some cases. That's why I
did this myself. IIRC that tool seemed to generate far too many false
warnings.

--
Janek Kozicki                                                         |
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Janek Kozicki]

Henrik Sundberg said:     (by the date of Wed, 23 May 2007 18:43:52 +0200)

> 2007/5/23, John Maddock <john@...>:
> > Looks like we still have a bit of chasing up to do on the license front.

> Problem counts:
>  661 files missing Boost license info or having wrong reference text
>  398 files missing copyright notice


yep. that's what I'm talking about. Sometime license information was
indeed weirdly wrapped/indented. But it was there.


--
Janek Kozicki                                                         |
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[David Abrahams]

on Wed May 23 2007, Janek Kozicki <janek_listy-AT-wp.pl> wrote:

> But here's what I've found:

<snip>

> Whew. That's it. Took me one and a half an hour. Hope this helps.

Wow, thanks!

>
> Based on above research I could tell that only boost::ublas doesn't
> have BSL, while all the other files are simply a mistake that can be
> quickly corrected...

In that case I vote for ripping ublas out of Boost unless and until
the authors fix it.  This is crazy; people have had long enough.

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com

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

[John Maddock]

David Abrahams wrote:
>> Based on above research I could tell that only boost::ublas doesn't
>> have BSL, while all the other files are simply a mistake that can be
>> quickly corrected...
>
> In that case I vote for ripping ublas out of Boost unless and until
> the authors fix it.  This is crazy; people have had long enough.

I'm not sure about that: ublas was voted in under it's existing licence, the
authors didn't know at the time that we were about to change things :-)

Still we should have another go at contacting them whatever,

John.

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

David Abrahams wrote:

>
> on Wed May 23 2007, Janek Kozicki <janek_listy-AT-wp.pl> wrote:
>
>> But here's what I've found:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Whew. That's it. Took me one and a half an hour. Hope this helps.
>
> Wow, thanks!
>
>>
>> Based on above research I could tell that only boost::ublas doesn't
>> have BSL, while all the other files are simply a mistake that can be
>> quickly corrected...
>
> In that case I vote for ripping ublas out of Boost unless and until
> the authors fix it.  This is crazy; people have had long enough.

Interesting. Reading http://boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License I see
that BSL is the recommended, but not required license. Above, you propose
to rip out a part of Boost because it's not BSL. Can you please point me to

- A document that say BSL is an absolute requirement
- A mailing list announcement that BSL is now an absolute requirement

I've no comment if such change is good or not, but I'm worried about such
global decision being made silently.

- Volodya


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

[David Abrahams]

on Sun May 27 2007, "John Maddock" <john-AT-johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> Based on above research I could tell that only boost::ublas doesn't
>>> have BSL, while all the other files are simply a mistake that can be
>>> quickly corrected...
>>
>> In that case I vote for ripping ublas out of Boost unless and until
>> the authors fix it.  This is crazy; people have had long enough.
>
> I'm not sure about that: ublas was voted in under it's existing licence, the
> authors didn't know at the time that we were about to change things :-)

I know it's slightly radical, but at the same time, the ublas authors
have made no efforts to integrate with the Boost community and if
their library is *still* holding back progress after all this time,
IMO it should be dropped.  Unlike Boost.Threads, IMO, it can still be
maintained as a project outside of Boost... which is sorta what
happens anyway IIUC.

> Still we should have another go at contacting them whatever,

Please do :)

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com

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

[David Abrahams]

on Sun May 27 2007, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>>
>> on Wed May 23 2007, Janek Kozicki <janek_listy-AT-wp.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> But here's what I've found:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Whew. That's it. Took me one and a half an hour. Hope this helps.
>>
>> Wow, thanks!
>>
>>>
>>> Based on above research I could tell that only boost::ublas doesn't
>>> have BSL, while all the other files are simply a mistake that can be
>>> quickly corrected...
>>
>> In that case I vote for ripping ublas out of Boost unless and until
>> the authors fix it.  This is crazy; people have had long enough.
>
> Interesting. Reading http://boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License I
> see that BSL is the recommended, but not required license. Above,
> you propose to rip out a part of Boost because it's not BSL. Can you
> please point me to
>
> - A document that say BSL is an absolute requirement
> - A mailing list announcement that BSL is now an absolute requirement
>
> I've no comment if such change is good or not, but I'm worried about such
> global decision being made silently.

I don't have time to dig these things up right now, and maybe there
wasn't even a formal "announcement" per se, but it is common knowledge
that the point of the BSL was to get Boost under a single license and
there has been a massive, well-publicized, effort to get permissions
from library authors so we could do just that.

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com

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

[David Abrahams]

on Sun May 27 2007, Pavol Droba <droba-AT-topmail.sk> wrote:

> Rene Rivera wrote:
>> Hervé Brönnimann wrote:
>>> I would like to know also.
>>
>>> On May 27, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Pavol Droba wrote:
>>>> Who is in charge for account creation?
>>
>> Have you tried contacting all the moderators at
>> <mailto:boost-owner@...> as the instructions mention
>> <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BoostSubversion> ?
>>  
>
> I have understood it as "any" of them and choose Doug Gregor.

In general, please do not email individual moderations with admin
requests.  Having a bunch of people is part of the way we amortize the
work and make sure that those who have time to handle requests are the
ones that do it.  Also the individual you choose may be out of
communication at any time, as happened here.

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com

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

David Abrahams wrote:

>> - A document that say BSL is an absolute requirement
>> - A mailing list announcement that BSL is now an absolute requirement
>>
>> I've no comment if such change is good or not, but I'm worried about such
>> global decision being made silently.
>
> I don't have time to dig these things up right now, and maybe there
> wasn't even a formal "announcement" per se, but it is common knowledge
> that the point of the BSL was to get Boost under a single license and
> there has been a massive, well-publicized, effort to get permissions
> from library authors so we could do just that.

Sorry, but getting as many libraries as possible under BSL (which
is indeed well-publicized effort) is not the same as prohibiting
libraries not under BSL completely. The latter goal might be obvious
to you or to boost moderators, but don't you find a proposal
to rip a part of Boost based on policy that's not
documented anywhere a little weird?

- Volodya


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

[Michael Stevens-8]

On Sunday 27 May 2007 11:36, Vladimir Prus wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
> > on Wed May 23 2007, Janek Kozicki <janek_listy-AT-wp.pl> wrote:
> >> But here's what I've found:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Whew. That's it. Took me one and a half an hour. Hope this helps.
> >
> > Wow, thanks!
> >
> >> Based on above research I could tell that only boost::ublas doesn't
> >> have BSL, while all the other files are simply a mistake that can be
> >> quickly corrected...
> >
> > In that case I vote for ripping ublas out of Boost unless and until
> > the authors fix it.  This is crazy; people have had long enough.

crazy ;-)

> Interesting. Reading http://boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License I see
> that BSL is the recommended, but not required license. Above, you propose
> to rip out a part of Boost because it's not BSL. Can you please point me to
>
> - A document that say BSL is an absolute requirement
> - A mailing list announcement that BSL is now an absolute requirement
>
> I've no comment if such change is good or not, but I'm worried about such
> global decision being made silently.

Indeed.

With regard to uBLAS I think there is little chance of a license change.

Joerg was contactable up to last year by phone. Email however landed in the
bit bucket. He was always very non committal as to a change to a BGL license.
I assume a change would require Mathias' agreement. I not sure who Mathias is
or if Joerg was still in contact with him. Basically the orignal authors do
not seem to be interested in a license change.

We would have to accept that if uBLAS's license becomes unacceptable to the
Boost community then uBLAS would have to move. The change to BSL has been
around for a long time after all and the BSL is a good thing.

Maybe there would be a gentler solution then Dave's suggested 'ripping out'. I
think a single license for all of Boost is very helpful to users.  So the
change would have to make the license status very clear. Some kind
of 'historical', 'aberrant license' status maybe?

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

[Malte Clasen-2]

Michael Stevens wrote:
> Maybe there would be a gentler solution then Dave's suggested 'ripping out'. I
> think a single license for all of Boost is very helpful to users.  So the
> change would have to make the license status very clear. Some kind
> of 'historical', 'aberrant license' status maybe?

Have a look at the way debian/ubuntu organize the distribution: There's
afaik a main repository with supported and properly licenced software
and a restricted repository with supported software that's non-free in
some way. Boost could provide all BSL projects in the main part and move
ublas to the restricted area. However, if the BSL is mandatory for new
projects, ublas would stay the only restricted project, making this
solution disproportionately expensive.

A second solution would be a separate Add-On page. These add-on-projects
are not part of the current distribution, but should be compatible with
it. This would be a place for projects that are already accepted but not
integrated in the main distribution, yet, and projects with a non-BSL
license (ublas).

Malte

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

[David Abrahams]

on Mon May 28 2007, Michael Stevens <list-boost-AT-michael-stevens.de> wrote:

> On Sunday 27 May 2007 11:36, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:

>> > In that case I vote for ripping ublas out of Boost unless and until
>> > the authors fix it.  This is crazy; people have had long enough.
>
> crazy ;-)
>
>> Interesting. Reading http://boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License I see
>> that BSL is the recommended, but not required license. Above, you propose
>> to rip out a part of Boost because it's not BSL. Can you please point me to
>>
>> - A document that say BSL is an absolute requirement
>> - A mailing list announcement that BSL is now an absolute requirement
>>
>> I've no comment if such change is good or not, but I'm worried about such
>> global decision being made silently.
>
> Indeed.

Well, it's not being made silently; we're discussing it now.  Nothing
like a radical proposal for getting the issues out into the open, is
there? ;-)

> With regard to uBLAS I think there is little chance of a license
> change.
>
> Joerg was contactable up to last year by phone. Email however landed
> in the bit bucket. He was always very non committal as to a change
> to a BGL license.  I assume a change would require Mathias'
> agreement. I not sure who Mathias is or if Joerg was still in
> contact with him. Basically the orignal authors do not seem to be
> interested in a license change.
>
> We would have to accept that if uBLAS's license becomes unacceptable
> to the Boost community then uBLAS would have to move. The change to
> BSL has been around for a long time after all and the BSL is a good
> thing.
>
> Maybe there would be a gentler solution then Dave's suggested
> 'ripping out'.

I would love that.  

> I think a single license for all of Boost is very
> helpful to users.  So the change would have to make the license
> status very clear. Some kind of 'historical', 'aberrant license'
> status maybe?

Personally, I don't think it makes sense.  It looks like in the very
near future this library will be the one and only piece of Boost that
is not under BSL.  I think having one single special case hurts Boost
way more than it helps.

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com

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