[geos-devel] Boost License compatibility
chodgson at refractions.net
Wed Apr 8 16:47:08 EDT 2009
But don't forget to read:
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.
Paul Ramsey wrote:
> FSF says they are compatible.
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>> Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> writes:
>>> "mloskot, You Are Not A Lawyer!"
>> IANAL either; TINLA.
>>> However, I'm trying to understand compatibility of the terms of LGPL
>>> and Boost License .
>> 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  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
>> 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
> geos-devel mailing list
> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the geos-devel