From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-11-05 08:51:50
>The library is currently under a kind of an Artistic License.
>Basically it can be used freely for any purpose, commercial or
>non-commercial, it can be changed freely as well.
>The only restriction is, that if changes made to BL are distributed
>publicly, they must be clearly marked at the source, and the
>holder is entitled to incorporate the changes to the original
>My questions are:
> Do you find the library would a suiable addition to Boost
Conceptually, it would be a nice addition. Hard to know the details;
it isn't one of those libraries you can just glance at the header and
form a quick opinion of quality. It certainly looks impressive.
Random thoughts; a test program would help, and could you do the
reference manual is HTML rather than a .ps file? And of course wrap
it in namespace boost, etc.
> Does the license cause problems?
Is there any reason you couldn't just use a simple copyright license
like current boost libraries? I always have a problem with licenses
1) which need a lawyer to know what they say, and 2) where the size
of the license is larger than my attension span. Yours isn't really
horrible, but I also don't see why a simple copyright message
wouldn't do just as well.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk