RE: [boost] geometry classes and computational geometry

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-21 20:17:17

At 02:54 PM 11/21/2000 -0800, Gary Powell wrote:
 >
 >> Is there any chance that the CGAL group would want to provide a more 
open
 >> licence version of CGAL? Would the group be interested in submitting 
CGAL
 >> to Boost at some point, and/or combining efforts?
 >>
 >Since the copyright appears to be 1997 it should be obvious to the CGAL
 >group whether they have been able to actually sell any licenses to this
 >product. If not maybe they would be willing to change. My guess is that 
any
 >change would be difficult due to the large number of consortium members.
 >
 >If its of any help in your discussions, my company Sierra, probably would
 >not agree to pay for this library for the current set of projects. For 
code
 >they (The managers) think they can't write internally they do buy. So its 
a
 >toss up.
 >
 >If I were you and I was making money I'd probably keep the current
 >restriction. If I wasn't making enough after 3 years I scrap it as being
 >more trouble than it was worth. Note that if you don't open it up, boost
 >will more than likely write some sort of free package in which case 
graphic
 >library users will face the dilemma of free and no support, vs pay $$ and
 >get support. (It will however take time, and it does rely on someone
 >willing to give away their time and expertise.) It's the devils choice.

The time may come when one or more of support companies may offer the boost 
libraries, with support, for a fee.  As long as they meet our license 
requirements, that would be alright, AFAIK.

Boost has already accepted two libraries (Graphs and Regular Expressions) 
which originated elsewhere.  We should and will continue to be open to 
other preexisting libraries.

I expect developers of an existing library might worry about loss of 
control if they submit their library to boost.  Well, boost isn't a 
committee.  Boost reviewers decide they want the whole library or not. The 
library developer (usually the copyright holder) continues to control the 
source code and documentation, including CVS write access if desired. The 
developer stays in relative control, yet gains the benefit of boost 
exposure and expertise.

Hum. That sound good. Maybe I'll add it to the FAQ.

--Beman

--Beman