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

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-28 01:26:32

David Abrahams wrote:

>> - 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.

Sorry, but getting as many libraries as possible under BSL (which 
is indeed well-publicized effort) is not the same as prohibiting 
libraries not under BSL completely. The latter goal might be obvious
to you or to boost moderators, but don't you find a proposal
to rip a part of Boost based on policy that's not 
documented anywhere a little weird?

- Volodya