Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-16 22:10:19

Darren Cook <darren_at_[hidden]> writes:

> > If we're going to include a URL we had *really* better have a stable
> > license, no?
> Not if the URL contains the version number.

That would be stable by definition, unless you mean to change the
text of the thing that the versioned URL points at.

> As this is just going to be a block that authors will copy and paste I
> think more information is better. E.g.
> // foo library header
> // Copyright Jane Programmer, 2003.
> // See Boost Software License Version 1.0 for terms and
> // conditions of use (
> // See for documentation.

Yes, that's exactly what I would've suggested.

> On a related subject, I always find it useful to be told a license is
> either GPL, BSD-like, or if neither of those then be told the
> differences from one of those in short, simple terms. I expect most
> programmers understand those two, and most programmers hate to read
> licenses.

Would you care to draft a comparative document that can be added to or
linked to from the license info page?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at