License update for FAQ?

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-10 09:53:38

In private email, Forrest Cavalier points out that the Boost FAQ entry 
regarding licenses is not totally correct.  It currently says:

 >>>>Are open source license libraries acceptable?  No, not currently. Open 
source licenses often require redistribution or availability of source 
code, inclusion of license document with machine-executable redistribution, 
give the initial developer rights to licensee modifications, and need a 
lawyer to understand.  These would be immediate disqualifications for many 
business, commercial, and consumer applications. Boost aims to avoid 
subjecting users to hard-to-comply-with license terms.

This is subject to review for a particularly important piece of software, 
or as the industry changes.<<<<

If you look at the open source licenses listed at 
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/, most are not acceptable.  But 
zlib/libpng is acceptable, I think, and also possibly MIT.

So we should rewrite the FAQ entry.  Perhaps:

Are "open source" license libraries acceptable?  Most are not, but a few 
are. Most of the "open source" licenses listed by 
http://www.opensource.org/licenses are not acceptable to Boost because 
they  require redistribution or availability of source code, require 
inclusion of license document with machine-executable redistribution, give 
the initial developer rights to licensee modifications, or need a lawyer to 
understand.  These are immediate disqualifications for many business, 
commercial, and consumer applications which Boost wishes to support. Boost 
aims to avoid subjecting users to hard-to-comply-with license terms.

The zlib/libpng license 
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html) is one example of an 
"open source" license which would be acceptable to Boost.

Comments?

--Beman