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:
>> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk