From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-18 11:19:00
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:22 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: google going open source
> "Martin Wille" <mw8329_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> | > "Bronek Kozicki" <brok_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | > news:4239ED44.5090508_at_rubikon.pl...
> | > | under BSD 2.0 license
> | > | http://code.google.com/
> | > |
> | >
> | > Hm...would anyone volenteer to boostify
> | > https://sourceforge.net/projects/goog-perftools/,
> | Can't be done, due to the license.
> Well, what a great gift to the open source community then !
The BSD license is as flexible as the Boost license. It is also more widely
used, understood and recognized than the Boost license. Come to think of it
I think Boost should switch to the BSD license, or at least but accepting of
code released under the Boost license. The excellent STLSoft libraries by
Matthew Wilson ( http://www.stlsoft.org ) are BSD licensed.
I am not a legal expert, but I see no reason one can not add a Boost license
to code already licensed under the BSD version 2.0. It just makes for a
screenful of disclaimers for every header.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk