From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-30 12:02:50
> > With regards to the licence issue as a whole, I suggest that Boost
> > permit separate licences for individual components of Boost.
> As long as you understand that you're not answering my question but
> instead are changing the subject here...
Well, this was the original subject of the thread. <shrug>
> First, I agree that it would be of benefit to most if we had a single
> Boost license used by all. That's *sort of* the goal of suggesting
> a "standard" Boost license. However, requiring all libraries,
> current and future, to adhere to this license is not likely to be
> something that Boost can do. It will assuredly scare away some
> contributers, after all the current restrictions on what can be
> placed in a license has already caused heart burn for several people
> in the past. Not giving them any wiggle room at all would likely
> cause some to simply not contribute. This point has been discussed a
> lot on this list before.
> BTW, the BSD license has been rejected in the past.
http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License gives requirements:
a.. Must be simple to read and understand.
b.. Must grant permission to copy, use and modify the software for any
use (commercial and non-commercial) for no fee.
c.. Must require that the license appear on all copies of the software
d.. Must not require that the license appear with executables or other
binary uses of the library.
e.. Must not require that the source code be available for execution
or other binary uses of the library.
f.. May restrict the use of the name and description of the library to
the standard version found on the Boost web site.
Unfortunately, it appears that "public domain" does not meet the last
requirement listed. Is the rationale for rejecting the BSD licence also
the same? Or is it that it run afoul of the first one?
> Here you almost got back to answering my question, though you took it
> much further then appropriate ;). It's not really possible to
> have "aliases" here. We have to pick a single name. Either we
> settle on one spelling of license, or we chose a name that doesn't
> have different cultural spellings.
If one is going to go to the trouble of writing a program to
conglomerate the text within all files named "license.txt" in a
directory tree, it's not much more difficult to include the text of
files named "licence.txt" as well.
[and from a later post by Paul Bristow]
> I have a proposal for a deal:
> WE agree to spell it 'license' and 'color'.
> YOU agree to change dates to day month year, and to use only A4 paper!
... and SI units! (= metric) ;-)
P.S. I like Y*MMDD for dates myself...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk