Boost logo

Boost :

From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-24 21:42:01

On Jul 24, 2004, at 8:47 PM, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:
> I ran it on all of the directory names in libs, in current Boost CVS,
> except for CVS, python, and serialization - the last two gave errors.


> * The following people ARE in blanket-permission.txt, but have used
> these alternate names in Boost code. Their names should be changed to
> their canonical forms. (And then the appropriate files should be
> BSLed.)
> Doug Gregor

This one should now be fixed...

> * "Files that could be converted to the Boost Software License" should
> be. There are a lot of files there.

I'll see if I can come up with a program to do this automagically. We
have to be _very_ careful with this, though.

> * Some non-BSL files display copyrights by:
> Boost org
> boost org
> It should be figured out who actually wrote these. I don't think
> "boost org" is a real organization.

I'll take care of this.

> * From what I've heard on the list, "William E Kempf" hasn't been seen
> in quite some time. He should be contacted.

If we could, we would.

> * The following organizations (or people with really, really weird
> names) hold copyrights to non-BSL libraries. They should be
> contacted.
> Free Software Foundation Inc

They're not going to agree to the BSL, that's for sure :) This only
affects the Graphviz parser in the BGL, which is due for a rewrite soon

> Indiana University

Looking into this...

> The Trustees of Indiana University

Same as above.

> University of Notre Dame

Also looking into this,

> uBLAS developers

I doubt this is a legal entity...

> * Why are new libraries, such as Boost Algorithm, being accepted
> without the BSL? At the very least, Boost could try to not move
> backwards.

We should make this a requirement, I think.

> * Some files - boost/iterator_adaptors.hpp, a huge (all?) chunk of
> boost/mpl, and lots of stuff in libs/config/test - have no
> recognizable copyright holder. That should be fixed.

Probably just a form of license not matched by one of the regexes in
bcp. Easily fixed, with a little time investment.

> * Maybe bcp could add "Percent Converted" to the report? It'd be nice
> to see how many files have been converted to the BSL out of how many
> files there are, total.

Sure, but it might be more useful to have that scorecard showing which
libraries are completely under the BSL. Both are easy enough to


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