[geos-devel] Boost License compatibility

[Chris Hodgson]

But don't forget to read:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean

It seems their definition of compatibility only refers to the ability to 
combine the code, without reference to what license the resulting code 
could possibly be released under.

Chris

Paul Ramsey wrote:
> FSF says they are compatible.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
>
> P
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>   
>> Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> writes:
>>
>>     
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> "mloskot, You Are Not A Lawyer!"
>>>       
>> IANAL either; TINLA.
>>
>>     
>>> However, I'm trying to understand compatibility of the terms of LGPL
>>> and Boost License [1].
>>>       
>> Typically when people talk about compatibility of licenses, they are asking:
>>
>>  If I combine work A under license LA with work B under license LB to
>>  form C, can I distribute C at all?
>>
>> (For example, original BSD and GPL are incompatible, because the original
>> BSD license requires acknowledgement in supporting materials and the GPL
>> forbids adding that condition.  So combined works can't be distributed
>> at all.)
>>
>> I think you're asking a different question that adds a condition.
>>
>>  (bind A to GEOS, B to Boost)
>>  can I distribute C under LB?
>>
>>     
>>> I'm looking for someone who would be able to confirm if
>>> it i (or not) forbidden to copy/rewrite/port parts/solutions/algorithms
>>> from source of GEOS to a source licensed under the terms of Boost License.
>>>       
>> I would say that sure, you can copy (because the LGPL only imposes
>> constraints on distributing), but then you have to follow the LGPL's
>> distribution terms.  This would mean that the combined work would have
>> to be licensed under the LPGL (or pure GPL - I'm not quite clear on this
>> point).  The Boost license 1.0 looks like the "MIT license", "X11
>> License", or "modified BSD license".
>>
>>     
>>> Here is a short comparison of Boost License and LGPL [2] and I'm worried
>>> that Boost's requirement of:
>>>
>>> "Must grant permission to copy, use and modify the software for any use
>>> (commercial and non-commercial) for no fee. "
>>>
>>> forbids such activity (copying).
>>>       
>> That was a requirement of the working group that came up with the
>> license.  That language does not appear in the actual license, so
>> there's no need to follow it.  "Commercial" is am imprecise word, but it
>> seems clear the boost people mean "provide binaries without sources" by
>> that.
>>
>> It's pretty clear the boost people would reject including LPGL code in
>> boost, if that's what you are asking.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> geos-devel mailing list
>> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> geos-devel mailing list
> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
>