From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-03 11:57:37
> > http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License gives requirements:
> > License requirements
> > a.. Must be simple to read and understand.
> > b.. Must grant permission to copy, use and modify the
> > software for any use (commercial and non-commercial) for no fee.
> > c.. Must require that the license appear on all copies of
> > the software source code.
> > d.. Must not require that the license appear with
> > executables or other binary uses of the library.
> > e.. Must not require that the source code be available for
execution
> > or other binary uses of the library.
> > f.. May restrict the use of the name and description of the
> > library to the standard version found on the Boost web site.
> > Unfortunately, it appears that "public domain" does not meet the
last
> > requirement listed.
> The last "requirement" is a "may", not a real requirement. A license
doesn't
> have to restrict anything. So PD is Ok, there. It runs afoul of point
c), as
> far as
> I can see.
> I think you are allowed to offer two different license terms, though,
so you
> can offer
> your source code under non-Boost-compatible terms, too.
Granted, c) would need tweaking for public domain to be acceptable. All
in all, it's a bit difficult to fit in "public domain" against
requirements that seem to have been defined with the assumption that
there would be a licence required in the first place. :-) No rationale
for that particular decision was documented, so it's not clear to me
that it was actually consciously made.
Dave Gomboc