Boost logo

Boost :

From: Christopher Woods (cwoods_eol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-31 10:43:25

David Abrahams wrote:
> on Tue May 29 2007, Christopher Woods <> 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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at