Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-31 02:06:04

David Abrahams wrote:

> > /* This file is part of Qt and is available under the Q Public License,
> > available from
> > */

> > Is adding such a string acceptable? Clearly we need to do something,
> > but what?
> Given the analysis at

I should not that all requirement which are failed by QPL mention "library".
There's nothing about examples.

> I think it would be _much_ better if we could replace these files with
> homegrown equivalent, or have the BBv2 tests download the files
> automatically.

Ok, I happened to have some small Qt program I wrote myself, so I've changed
the example to be based on that program, and now it has my copyright.

> Anything we have in the boost tree whose license
> doesn't make it "free for any use" is going to be a barrier to
> adoption.

I'm still curious. You say "barrier to adoption". How many users really think
it's a barrier? Do they really that picky when it comes to files which are
not parts of any library, and so are not linked with?

- Volodya

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