From: Walter Landry (wlandry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-02 22:46:58
"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> "Walter Landry" <wlandry_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > Darren Cook <darren_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > If so I wonder if the GSL authors would be open to a dual,
> > > boost-compatible license so that a boost library could borrow
> > > code as it needed to, rather than having to re-invent the wheel.
> > Almost certainly not. They are not even willing to entertain going to
> > the LGPL. There used to be a blurb on their website saying that if
> > you can't handle the GPL, then use something else.
> Do you suppose it's legal to write a Boost-compatible C++ interface
> on top of GSL?
Since the Boost license is compatible with the GPL, it would be legal
to write, compile, and distribute a C++ interface. But it wouldn't
gain you anything license-wise, since the C++ interface plus GSL would
still be effectively licensed under the GPL. The GSL authors did this
on purpose. They don't want to allow proprietary software to use GSL.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk