RE: [boost] Re: Call for Volunteers [license review]

From: Iain K.Hanson (iain.hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-12 05:39:41

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Joel de Guzman
> Sent: 11 December 2002 23:02
> To: Boost mailing list
> Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Call for Volunteers [license review]
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joel de Guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]>
> 
> > PS> One question: Why is GPL not in the list? I assume it's because
> > it is known to fail the given criteria? Correct me if I'm 
> mistaken. If so, the
> > wxWindows Library License should also be out of the list.  wxWindows
> > Library License states that:
> > 
> > This library is free software; you can redistribute it 
> and/or modify it under
> > the terms of the GNU Library General Public Licence as 
> published by the
> > Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the Licence, 
> or (at your option)
> > any later version.
> 
> Whoops, I'm sorry, I didn't catch the Library in "GNU Library 
> General Public 
> Licence". So then, consider wxWindows Library License done as 
> it is the same
> as LGPL.
> 

Not quiet. But it still fails. It also allows you to distribute
modified binaries that are extensions of the library under your
own terms.

/ikh