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

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
> 

"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

"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