From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-29 15:46:40
At 02:49 PM 10/25/2003, Joerg Walter wrote:
>Should we require The Boost License for contributions? (Jonathan's iobind
>is LGPL'ed IIRC).
Anything that is distributed by Boost needs a Boost compatible license,
preferably the Boost license itself.
It would seem to be easier to just require that for all contributions,
rather than have to keep track of non-compatible licenses.
>- Dependency management
>Which parts of boost could or should a separate (partial) distribution
Likewise, will the Boost distributions continue to include all of ublas?
You might want to chat with the Spirit folks, since they are the pioneers
of the "separate but still Boost" approach.
Please post something on this list letting us know what you decide. It
seems a normal part of the maturation process for larger libraries to
evolve into "separate but still Boost".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk