RE: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License

From: Glen Knowles (gknowles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-08 14:21:12

From: Alexander Terekhov [mailto:terekhov_at_[hidden]]
>> The Common Public License already has a section in the wiki and fails
>> the boost requirements as shown.
>>
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License
/Common_Public_License
>
>Yeah. That "review process" was really entertaining. Thanks for the 
>reminder. "Must be simple to read and understand" is rather subjective, 
>don't you think? As for "Must not require that the source code be 
>available for execution or other binary uses of the library"... well, 
>what's the problem? www.boost.org was pretty stable, thus far.

Now you're arguing that the boost license requirements should be changed in
order to make them compatible with the CPL? That's a bit of a stretch,
especially since I like the boost requirements as they are.

Glen