From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-26 12:59:51
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > Sean Parent wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Dealing with copyright and patent issues in IP is all about risk management
>> >> for a corporation and limiting their exposure. The deeper the corporate
>> >> pockets the more conservative a stance the organization will tend to take.
>> > Right.
>> >> What Adobe looks for is that: ....
>> > Right.
>> > Public domain <http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1390498> aside,
>> > you might want to take a look at:
>> > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php
>> > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
>> Why? Is there something about these licenses which warrants our
>> attention more than the plethora of other open-source licenses
>> floating about? We probably can't review all of them...
> You probably can ADOPT one of them [with whatever changes you might
> want/need to add] and require all contributors to accept it for each
> and every contribution to boost.
That's a non-answer. We could "ADOPT" (and would you please stop
shouting; I'm getting tired of having to ask) any of the plethora of
other open-source licenses that are floating about, with whatever
changes we want/need to add. What makes the IBM license more worthy of
consideration than, say, the BSD license?
And as to whether we will require that contributors adopt a central
Boost license or not, that question is still open.
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk