From: Kevin Atkinson (kevinatk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-15 12:40:45
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Paul Baxter wrote:
> I think Boost would qualify if you wanted it to be submitted, but I would
> hate to see Boost restrict itself to any one of the licenses. The principle
> of freely accessable code for commercial or non-commercial use is a must.
I don't think it HAS to use a standard license. Any of the boost license
would be Open Source because the source code has to be available and can be
modified at will. If you just explain that boost is more of a collection
of individual maintained libraries rather than one piece of software and
would be under a wide variety of licenses but all licensees will meet
these minimum requires they will be satisfied.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk