From: Matt Hurd (matt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-25 17:31:37
>The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive license
>right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission must
>still be included according to the draft license.
>This would lead to a license text like:
I am a little confused. Like Jaarko, I read it as viral.
If you produced a derivative work, or copy paste a little code, then you
are bound to include the boost license which makes your source open as
Seems akin to LGPL.
Is this the intention or have I misread it?
Australian is my native tongue...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk