[geos-devel] Boost License compatibility

[Mateusz Loskot]

Greg Troxel wrote:
> Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> writes:
>> 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?

The question is like this:

Can I copy lines 10-30 from GEOS source file a.cpp to project X which
is licensed under the terms of Boost License?

>> 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".


There is an existing code, project X licensed under Boost License.
If I copy some work based on LGPL and include it in the X,
can I still distribute X under the terms of Boost 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.

Yes, that's clear.

> It's pretty clear the boost people would reject including LPGL code
> in boost, if that's what you are asking.

And this is something that is not clear or better, not obvious to me.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org