|
»
« Return to Thread: Any libraries now not under the Boost Software License?
Re: Any libraries now not under the Boost Software License?
by Janek Kozicki
::
Rate this Message:
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about license is obsolete because W.Kempf granted BSL for his code.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
> 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
« Return to Thread: Any libraries now not under the Boost Software License?
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
