Subject: [triage] Re: For Approval: Boost Software License, Version 1.0
From: Zak Greant <zak@greant.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:48:21 -0800

 Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:48:21 -0800
Hi David, Greetings All,

On Oct 10, 2007, at 16:52PDT (CA), David Abrahams wrote:
> This is a copy of the application submitted by Devin Smith to
> license-approval@opensource.org prior to 7/27/2006.  We appreciate
> your attention to this matter.

Previously ticketed at:

   https://osi.osuosl.org/ticket/45

Expanding ticket 45 with the new information found below.

Closing "Objection: Boost Software License approval request invalid"  
ticket with an invalid status.

   https://osi.osuosl.org/ticket/61

> I apologize if this is a second copy, but I can't see the original
> posting in the list archives and I've been having some problems with
> my outgoing email recently.
>
> ---------
>
> On behalf of Boost.org, I hereby request OSI approval of the Boost  
> Software License.
>
> 1.  Name of License.  The name of the license is the “Boost  
> Software License”.
>
> 2.  Text of License.  The text of the Boost Software License is  
> reproduced in full below and is also available at http:// 
> www.boost.org/LICENSE 1 0.txt.

...

Attached to https://osi.osuosl.org/ticket/45 as
   https://osi.osuosl.org/attachment/ticket/45/boost-software-license- 
v1.0.txt

> 3.  Legal Analysis of License; Compliance with Open Source Definition.

...

Attached to https://osi.osuosl.org/ticket/45 as
   https://osi.osuosl.org/attachment/ticket/45/boost-software-license- 
v1.0-legal-analysis.txt

...

> For Approval:  Boost Software License
>
> 1.  The Boost Software License was developed in order to serve as a  
> common open source software license for the C++ libraries developed  
> by numerous different Boost.org contributors.  It was intended to  
> encourage commercial use of the boost.org libraries, by being  
> simple to read and understand, by not requiring that the license  
> statement appear in executables, and by allowing licensees to  
> undertake warranty obligations.
>
> The Boost Software License is based upon the MIT license, but  
> differs from the MIT license in that it:
>
> (i) makes clear that licenses can be granted to organizations as  
> well as individuals;
> (ii) does not require that the license appear with executables or  
> other binary uses of the library;
> (iii) expressly disclaims -- on behalf of the author and copyright  
> holders of the software only -- the warranty of title (a warranty  
> that, under the Uniform Commercial Code, is separate from the  
> warranty of non-infringement)
> (iv) does not extend the disclaimer of warranties to licensees, so  
> that they may, if they choose, undertake such warranties (e.g., in  
> exchange for payment).
>
> 2. Software distributed under the Boost Software License can be  
> used in conjunction with software distributed under other open  
> source licenses.  Any software license that is more restrictive of  
> the rights of a licensee (e.g., the GNU GPL) would likely take  
> precedence for derivative or combined works.  I don’t believe there  
> are any OSI-approved software licenses that are entirely  
> incompatible with the Boost Software License.

Cheers!
--zak