Subject: Re: [boost] BOOST license & GPL
From: Niklas Angare (li51ckf02_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-01 22:13:43
"Andrey Semashev via Boost" wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:22 PM, Niklas Angare via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> But if they distribute the whole thing saying "this is licensed under the
>> GPL", doesn't that kind of contradict the requirement to include the
>> Boost
>> Software License and the copyright notices?
>
> It does, if their distributed source (as a package or a VCS snapshot)
> does not contain BSL with a clear indication of what code is under
> BSL.
I can't find the Boost license in the KiCad source.
>> It would feel better to me if
>> they said "this is licensed under the GPL and, in part, other compatible
>> licenses".
>
> It doesn't work like that. A product, as a whole, must be distributed
> under a single license. (It can be distributed under multiple
> licenses, e.g. proprietary and copyleft, but that is another off-topic
> case; each such distribution is independent and whole.)
Why does the whole source package have to be distributed under a single
license?
> As I understand it, a license, among other things, defines two sets: a
> set of rights granted to the user, and a set of restrictions or
> obligations imposed on the user. Two licenses are compatible if the
> sets defined by the licenses are non-contradictory and can be
> fulfilled combined. BSL is less restrictive than GPL, and in order for
> the two of the licenses to be fulfilled the code must be distributed
> under the GPL. It doesn't make that BSL part on its own licensed under
> the GPL (or rather, you cannot enforce GPL on that part because the
> original copyright holders did not allow that).
The requirement that the entire BSL be included is not a part of the GPL, so
for that particular detail the BSL is more restrictive than the GPL. Maybe
I'm nitpicking.
Regards,
Niklas Angare