Re: [boost] Any libraries now not under the Boost Software License?

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-27 05:36:29

David Abrahams wrote:

> 
> on Wed May 23 2007, Janek Kozicki <janek_listy-AT-wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>> But here's what I've found:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Whew. That's it. Took me one and a half an hour. Hope this helps.
> 
> Wow, thanks!
> 
>>
>> Based on above research I could tell that only boost::ublas doesn't
>> have BSL, while all the other files are simply a mistake that can be
>> quickly corrected...
> 
> In that case I vote for ripping ublas out of Boost unless and until
> the authors fix it.  This is crazy; people have had long enough.

Interesting. Reading http://boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License I see
that BSL is the recommended, but not required license. Above, you propose
to rip out a part of Boost because it's not BSL. Can you please point me to

- A document that say BSL is an absolute requirement
- A mailing list announcement that BSL is now an absolute requirement

I've no comment if such change is good or not, but I'm worried about such
global decision being made silently.

- Volodya