Re: [boost] Re: License

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-10 10:59:15

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "David B. Held" wrote:
>> 
>> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:uwumlebxz.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
>> > [...]
>> >  Reminder: If you haven't done one yet, please take a moment to review
>> >  one of the licenses at
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License
>> 
>> I finally knocked off a few of these bad boys.  Not sure if my reviews
>> were totally coherent.  I was a little distracted doing some of them.
>
> Yeah. I've briefly looked at the "review-summary" for LGPL and CPL.
> I have a question. Could someone please clarify for me the meaning
> of the following "requirement":
>
> "Must not require that the source code be available for execution or 
>  other binary uses of the library."
>
> It is not clear to me what/which "source code" is meant here. The 
> meaning of "other binary uses" isn't clear to me either. TIA.

I think the general intention is to prohibit licenses which require
making the sources accessible when compiled code which uses the
library is distributed.

As to the specifics, Beman wrote them, so I'll leave it up to him to
clarify further.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution