Re: [boost] License update for FAQ?

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-10 11:05:52

----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <beman_at_[hidden]>

> 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?

I think we should retain the following:

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