Use Boost Software License#49
Conversation
[why] Read https://www.boost.org/doc/user-guide/bsl.html for a rationale of why the BSL is a good choice especially for foundational C++ libraries. In a nutshell, most other licenses require a copyright notice to appear in the final product even when the library is used in binary form, which the BSL does not require. This makes the library easier to use in other software. [how] Replace the old license.txt with the LGPL-2.1 text by a LICENSE.md with the BSL 1.0 text. Move our copyright and license information from the documentation website into README.md where it is much more accessible. The website just retains a link to the BSL and to the README. Adjust some details of the main Doxygen page accordingly (e.g. move the list of contributors into README.md).
[why] We have put GUL17 under the BSL v1.0.
[why] We have put our source code under the Boost Software License, so the file headers must reflect that.
alt-graph
force-pushed
the
use_boost_license
branch
from
b1af542 to
3178362
Compare
alt-graph
requested review from
Finii,
Seim2k17,
ohensler,
soerengrunewald and
zykure
|
Is Boost compatible with MIT and CC0 in regards to sub-licensing? Or in other works do we have to mention MIT/CC0 also in binary form? OT: I always thought that having some form of acknowledgement to the work was a good thing. |
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say it is compatible with CC0 because in CC0 the authors waive their rights to the maximum possible extent. It is probably incompatible with MIT because it grants an additional freedom (to build a program/library that does not contain copyright information in its binary form). That is why the README lists the date.h header as an exception. It is not under the BSL, but under its original MIT license. In theory – as far as I understood the Boost argument – a DOOCS server that uses the date.h header might have to display the copyright information of that file somewhere or come with a file with the license text: At least some lawyers might read it that way... 🤷
That is not OT at all. :-) In fact, the LGPL would theoretically give us more acknowledgement across all possible use cases of the library. But that argument is kind of moot if nobody except us uses it – which seems to be the case. The advantage of the BSL is that it makes it easier to reuse the code for anyone out there. Personally I find that more important for this kind of library. |
2 participants
With this MR I propose changing our main license for GUL17 to the Boost Software License (BSL) v1.0.
[why]
Read https://www.boost.org/doc/user-guide/bsl.html for a rationale of
why the BSL is a good choice especially for foundational C++ libraries.
In a nutshell, most other licenses require a copyright notice to appear
in the final product even when the library is used in binary form, which
the BSL does not require. This makes the library easier to use in other
software.
[how]
Replace the old license.txt with the LGPL-2.1 text by a LICENSE.md with
the BSL 1.0 text. Move our copyright and license information from the
documentation website into README.md where it is much more accessible.
The website just retains a link to the BSL and to the README.
Finally, replace license information in file headers where necessary.