From: Paul Giaccone (paulg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-14 04:37:46
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Ruediger Berlich wrote:
>
>> If the definition of "derivative works" includes activities commonly
>> understood as "usage" then [...] basically any
>> person just using Boost in an application has to
>> a) include a copyright notice for the corresponding Boost library's
>> author in the code (despite the fact that no modifications of that
>> library's code took place)
>> b) include the Boost license in his/her code.
>>
The same would apply to anyone who uses iostream or any other library.
Incidentally, Microsoft does not have a copyright notice in the file for
iostream, at least, not in the version I am using.
Let's consider an analogy. If a writer uses words or phrases defined in
a dictionary, does he need to acknowledge the copyright of that
dictionary in his work? Of course not. If that were illegal, he would
have to make up his own words and append a huge glossary to the end of
his novel, which no one would then be bothered to read. IANAL, but that
is exactly the same as is happening here. Microsoft, Boost, etc, provide
definitions of functions, etc, for use, unmodified, in other code. Now,
if were to take the code for iostream, change a few things and then
market it as my own work, it would be a derivative work and a breach of
copyright.
If the law is interpreted as meaning that any program that makes use of
a library as-is is breaching copyright, then these libraries effectively
become unusable, reusability goes out of the window, everyone has to
write their own code for I/O and everything else, and C++ dies. Surely
that cannot be the intention? (But then the law is an ass.)