From: Peter Foley (peter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-02 05:45:35
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:09:27 +0100
> From: "John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] Acceptable Licenses for Boost-Doc SVG Icons
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Message-ID: <07c801c7ba79$ffe90960$27850252_at_fuji>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> Peter Foley wrote:
> > Rather than risk proposing icons that are not licensed appropriately
> > and
> > then find that the license type was not acceptable I thought I would
> > solicit feedback first.
> > I have two questions for you to answer:
> > The first question is: Would image files be "required to" or "the
> > preference is" use the BSL.
> Given that until now we have used the stock Docbook XSL icons, which
> decidedly aren't BSL, I don't think we can afford to be too fussy.
> Just my 2c worth.
Ok that sounds promising.
>From the DocBook FAQ http://tinyurl.com/3xux36 it appears that DocBook
is distributed under a modified MIT/X Consortium license. I don't
haven't DocBook installed at the moment so cannot confirm this.
I am planning to wait a week from the original posting of my e-mail
before forming an opinion either way (ie must be BSL or can be other
similar open source license).
I hope that most people agree with your stance ("... I don't think we
can afford to be too fussy.") this will at least provide the boost
community with a greater chance/choice of finding icons that we find
appealing and have it covered by a similar open source license.
Thanks for your input into this John,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk