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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-27 18:53:27

on Sun May 27 2007, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:

> 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.

I don't have time to dig these things up right now, and maybe there
wasn't even a formal "announcement" per se, but it is common knowledge
that the point of the BSL was to get Boost under a single license and
there has been a massive, well-publicized, effort to get permissions
from library authors so we could do just that.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com