Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-10 07:49:12

From: "Tarjei Knapstad" <tarjeik_at_[hidden]>

> Currently we've had a look at the MIT license, which seems to satisfy
> your licensing requirements, but I would like to make sure that we don't
> have potential conflicts. The MIT license looks like this:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Copyright (c) 2002 Association of C and C++ Users (ACCU)
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
> in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> In particular I'm a bit uncertain if this license satisfies your
> requirement:
> "Must not require that the license appear with executables or other
> binary uses of the library."

I think it's pretty clear that the license does not satisfy the Boost
requirements. I don't see how there's any room for uncertainty, but maybe
I'm misinterpreting something here?

> If not, are there any of the OSI approved licenses
> ( that do satisfy the Boost
> requirements?

In a quick and not-very-thorough review, I didn't see any.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at