Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: google going open source

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-18 19:37:10

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:58:46 +0100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote
> "christopher diggins" <cdiggins_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:002101c52bfe$172e6050$d9958242_at_heronnest...
> 
> |Throsten, I found your exagerrated overuse of question marks and 
> the fact | that you snipped the relevant portion of my email discourteous.
> 
> Sorry, I never mean to be rude (which is not the same as I'm not), I 
> just write what pops into my mind.
> 
> Anyway, I hope your right that the licence can somehow be used by boost.

I think the correct answer was brought up earlier assuming someone wants to
try and bring code over -- just ask them.  I'm sure google has lawyers that
want to earn their pay ;)  But I think we are way ahead of ourselves -- I
don't think we've established:
1) the form of useful library(s) that people want in boost
2) someone that has the time and desire to boostify it

>From a larger view, I'm really excited to see companies like Adobe and Google
contributing C++ libraries into the community.  Since C++ doesn't have a
'natural funding source' (ie: a company with vested interests) like most
industrial Languages these days, C++ is at a distinct disadvantage w.r.t cool
libs/tools -- so every bit helps.  But we probably need ask if we should be
turning around and attempting to boostify this code?  People that want it can
just go to their source project, no?  Will the effort to boostify this sort of
code really pay off?  Wouldn't it evolve more cleanly with the project it is
attached to?  2 reasons I can see for boostification are things that people
want to standardize, and things that people want for other boost libs...

Jeff