From: Glen Knowles (gknowles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-10 16:39:25
From: Powell, Gary [mailto:powellg_at_[hidden]]
>>Boost licensing policy aside for a moment, the CPL is your friend.
>I agree. Or course that begs the question why have a special "boost"
>license? (Although I understand that not all parties to boost are bound
>by the laws of NY State and those of the US. And the USofA has not
>signed up for the world court.
>What does it take to include a CPL? a copy of the full text?
>And would including both a CPL AND the boost text corrupt the code to
>make it not boost acceptable?
If you look at the faq for the CPL:
Points 12 and 18 are problematic.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk