Boost License/Mozilla Public License

• Must be simple to read and understand.

FAIL: it's fairly involved, with legalese and similar in length to the GPL. On the other hand, it was rather legible and well-organized. There are a couple of ``notwithstanding'' that might create a few scratches of the head...

• Must grant permission to copy, use and modify the software for any use (commercial and non-commercial) for no fee.

PASS: to the best of my understanding, this is granted by Section 2. There is a distinction between Initial Developer and Contributor. Initial Developer must identify him/herself in Exhibit A (at the end) and specify which rights he grants with the Original Code.

• Must require that the license appear on all copies of the software source code.

PASS: but with a caveat that it is possible to publish Derived Work under a different license. Initial Developer may even allow the Original Code to be relicensed under a different license (provided in Exhibit A at the end of the license).

• Must not require that the license appear with executables or other binary uses of the library.

FAIL: but the situation is a bit more complex. The Executable may be distributed (even under a different license), as long as a notice must be displayed conspicuously with with the Executable as to where to find Source Code (which has to be made available). Read Paragraph 3.6 for the details.

• Must not require that the source code be available for execution or other binary uses of the library.

FAIL: Paragraph 3.6 states that "You may distribute Covered Code in Executable form only if the requirements of Section 3.1-3.5 have been met for that Covered Code, and if You include a notice stating that the Source Code version of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License, including a description of how and where You have fulfilled the obligations of Section 3.2" (Note: 3.2 requires the availability of Source Code.)

• May restrict the use of the name and description of the library to the standard version found on the Boost web site.

PASS: I couldn't find anything that forbids that. On the other, I'm not 100% sure, because the license seems to be fairly detached to what happens to the derived works. . So if someones makes a modifications, he/she may license it separately. But there is nothing to prevent making sure derived work should be under a diffferent name.

General comments:

Among the long paragraphs, I note "If You created one or more Modification(s) You may add your name as a Contributor to the notice described in Exhibit A. You must also duplicate this License in any documentation for the Source Code where You describe recipients' rights or ownership rights relating to Covered Code."

-- Herve' Bronnimann