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.
>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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk