ZyXEL Communications NSA221 User Manual page 512

Appendix E Open Source Licences
This license grants all rights under the owner's copyrights (as well as an implied
patent license), disclaims all liability for use of the code (including intellectual
property infringement liability), and requires that all subsequent copies of the
code [except machine-executable object code], including partial copies and
derivative works, include the license.
FAQ
How should Boost programmers apply the license to source and header files? Add a comment based on the following tem-
plate, substituting appropriate text for the italicized portion:
//
// Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
// (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
//
Please leave an empty line before and after the above comment block. It is fine if
the copyright and license messages are not on different lines; in no case there
should be other intervening text. Do not include "All rights reserved" anywhere.
Other ways of licensing source files have been considered, but some of them
turned out to unintentionally nullify legal elements of the license. Having fixed
language for referring to the license helps corporate legal departments evaluate
the boost distribution. Creativity in license reference language is strongly
discouraged, but judicious changes in the use of whitespace are fine.
How should the license be applied to documentation files, instead? Very similarly to the way it is applied to source files: the
user should see the very same text indicated in the template above, with the only difference that both the local and the web copy of
LICENSE_1_0.txt should be linked to. Refer to the HTML source code of this page in case of doubt.
Note that the location of the local LICENSE_1_0.txt needs to be indicated
relatively to the position of your documentation file (../LICENSE_1_0.txt, ../../
LICENSE_1_0.txt etc.)
How is the Boost license different from the GNU General Public License (GPL)? The Boost license permits the creation of
derivative works for commercial or non-commercial use with no legal requirement to release your source code. Other differences
include Boost not requiring reproduction of copyright messages for object code redistribution, and the fact that the Boost license
is not "viral": if you distribute your own code along with some Boost code, the Boost license applies only to the Boost code (and
modified versions thereof); you are free to license your own code under any terms you like. The GPL is also much longer, and
thus may be harder to understand.
Why the phrase "machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor"? To distinguish cases where
we do not require reproduction of the copyrights and license, such as object libraries, shared libraries, and final program executa-
bles, from cases where reproduction is still required, such as distribution of self-extracting archives of source code or precompiled
header files. More detailed wording was rejected as not being legally necessary, and reducing readability.
Why is the "disclaimer" paragraph of the license entirely in uppercase? Capitalization of these particular provisions is a US
legal mandate for consumer protection. (Diane Cabell)
Does the copyright and license cover interfaces too? The conceptual interface to a library isn't covered. The particular represen-
512
Copyright Joe Coder 2004 - 2006.
http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
NSA221 User's Guide