From: Christopher Woods (cwoods_eol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-31 10:43:25
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Tue May 29 2007, Christopher Woods <cwoods_eol-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Questions (from the novice/newbie/outsider):
>> 1) Is it a *requirement* for any new libraries that are submitted
>> for review, currently under review, or reviewed/accepted but not yet
>> in the Boost distribution accept the BSL?
> I'm going to go out on a limb and say "yes."
> An undocumented requirement, but still...
Good but I think it should be a clearly documented requirement of
acceptance to "Boost".
>> 2) Are there any other libraries of Boost that are dependent upon uBLAS?
> Not AFAIK.
Good - that means that if you do decide to pull it from Boost you aren't
going to end up ripping out lots of other libraries as well.
> Or maybe because you don't work in a company where the lawyers can't
> don't like complication, or because you can't see how having one
> exception causes pressure to allow more exceptions.
>> Certainly having many cases (as in before the BSL push/adoption) was
>> harmful if not impossible. I understand and agree with the need for
>> a single license but when you are down to 1-2 "stand-alone" cases
>> then the harm to boost is fairly minimized is it not?
> Reduced, but IMO not acceptable.
I understand that a single exception can leave an opening/pressure to
allow others. However many things in this world fall under "Grandfather
Clauses" because they were around before requirement/restriction/law X
was put forth and adopted. If it's understood by all that "that was the
way it was then and this is the rule/law/restriction now" then there
really isn't any pressure IMHO and hence the basis for how I was
suggesting to potentially treat uBLAS.
If that's unacceptable that's perfectly fine my me - I was just throwing
it out there for consideration.
>> They could review BSL, find it sufficient and then say to their
>> developers "you can use Boost except for uBLAS"
> In some cases, they don't trust the developers. uBLAS would actually
> need to be removed from the code to which they have access.
Thanks for your responses,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk