From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-28 00:49:41
Glen Knowles wrote:
> > From: Roland [mailto:roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]]
> > It is fine to hear, that there are serious attempts now to
> > move forward with the threads library.
> > However it would be too bad if we needed a _complete_ rewrite
> > of the threading library. Could anyone please drop me some
> > lines why this should be necessary at all?
> > Is the new license thus incompatible to the old one?
> This is entirely about licensing. The thread library needs to be under the
> boost license and it is not. All attempts to date to contact the copyright
> holder (William Kempf) have failed, without his permission we are in the
> position of needing to rewrite it into compliance.
I'm probably missing something, but why? Is current Boost.Thread license
violates some of Boost license guidelines? Wasn't the point of BSL to
simplify the task of evaluating Boost license for the user? Is so, why can't
we have all of Boost under BSL and Boost.Threads under current license? After
all, two licenses to evaluate should not be too much.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk