www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

c++.stlsoft - Question about interpretation of STLSoft license

reply "christopher diggins" <cdiggins videotron.ca> writes:
I wanted to know if an executable which uses the STLSoft library is 
considered a "redistribution in binary form", as in:

"Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution."

Thanks

-- 
Christopher Diggins
Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL)
http://www.ootl.org
Mar 19 2005
parent reply "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
STLSoft is, as you may realise, licensed using the BSD license.

I've always understood that clause (ii) to mean that it applies to any 
redistribution of any binary materials supplied under the license. For example, 
when I (soon) make available Java/Ruby/Python/.NET dynamic libraries for recls, 
anyone redistributing them would have to make suitable arrangements for 
redistribution.

But because STLSoft is now, and will always be (unless something truly amazing 
happens), 100% header-only source, it simply doesn't apply.

It could therefore be argued that clause (ii) simply be removed from STLSoft 
files. It's just that it's never come up before.

This having now arisen, I guess it'd be good to try and find out whether my 
interpretation of the BSD license is valid. Otherwise, 1.9.1 might be 
incorporating a wholesale change of license (just like 1.8.1 did, sigh).

Cheers

Matthew

P.S. For your, or anyone else's, information: I'm never going to even be 
interested in looking at what would be a phyiscally impossible task of
decompiling 
binaries to detect presence of unacknowledged STLSoft components. That's not
why 
I'm doing this thing that I do. :-)

"christopher diggins" <cdiggins videotron.ca> wrote in message 
news:d1i2n0$1sk1$1 digitaldaemon.com...

I wanted to know if an executable which uses the STLSoft library is considered
a 
"redistribution in binary form", as in:

 "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
 this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
 and/or other materials provided with the distribution."

 Thanks

 -- 
 Christopher Diggins
 Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL)
 http://www.ootl.org
Mar 19 2005
parent reply "christopher diggins" <cdiggins videotron.ca> writes:
"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
news:d1i9hq$23q3$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 STLSoft is, as you may realise, licensed using the BSD license.

 I've always understood that clause (ii) to mean that it applies to any 
 redistribution of any binary materials supplied under the license. For 
 example, when I (soon) make available Java/Ruby/Python/.NET dynamic 
 libraries for recls, anyone redistributing them would have to make 
 suitable arrangements for redistribution.

 But because STLSoft is now, and will always be (unless something truly 
 amazing happens), 100% header-only source, it simply doesn't apply.

 It could therefore be argued that clause (ii) simply be removed from 
 STLSoft files. It's just that it's never come up before.

 This having now arisen, I guess it'd be good to try and find out whether 
 my interpretation of the BSD license is valid.


I sure hope you are right, it is the only logical interpretation. However, 
apparently lawyers are weak in the logic department.


 Otherwise, 1.9.1 might be incorporating a wholesale change of license 
 (just like 1.8.1 did, sigh).


Would you consider making a separate release of the STLSoft which is 
distributed under the Boost license? This would potentially broaden your 
client base since apparently BSD like licenses makes the library a no-go for 
some coprorate types. This is what the word on the Boost grapevine is 
anyway. This could also increase the chance some of your code could find its 
way into Boost, which would significantly help boost (pun intended) your 
visibility.

Just a thought.

-D
Mar 21 2005
parent "Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
"christopher diggins" <cdiggins videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:d1n98m$l69$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message
news:d1i9hq$23q3$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 STLSoft is, as you may realise, licensed using the BSD license.

 I've always understood that clause (ii) to mean that it applies to any
redistribution of any binary materials 
 supplied under the license. For example, when I (soon) make available
Java/Ruby/Python/.NET dynamic libraries for 
 recls, anyone redistributing them would have to make suitable arrangements for
redistribution.

 But because STLSoft is now, and will always be (unless something truly amazing
happens), 100% header-only source, it 
 simply doesn't apply.

 It could therefore be argued that clause (ii) simply be removed from STLSoft
files. It's just that it's never come up 
 before.

 This having now arisen, I guess it'd be good to try and find out whether my
interpretation of the BSD license is 
 valid.


 I sure hope you are right, it is the only logical interpretation. However,
apparently lawyers are weak in the logic 
 department.


 Otherwise, 1.9.1 might be incorporating a wholesale change of license (just
like 1.8.1 did, sigh).


 Would you consider making a separate release of the STLSoft which is
distributed under the Boost license?


I guess that'd be ok. It'd be very easy to put that into the release process. I
could then release under any license I 
felt like, at any point, which might have its (currently unforeseen) uses in
the future.


 This would potentially broaden your client base since apparently BSD like
licenses makes the library a no-go for some 
 coprorate types. This is what the word on the Boost grapevine is anyway. This
could also increase the chance some of 
 your code could find its way into Boost, which would significantly help boost
(pun intended) your visibility.


That'd be ok, but I'm not too worried about it. As you may appreciate it, I see
the line on the 
Discoverability<=>Expressiveness spectrum at a different point to the people in
Boost. Plus, I don't exactly have the 
time to be handling a Boost-level amount of n.g. traffic. <g>

Cheers

Matthew
Mar 21 2005