From: Miles Bader (miles.bader_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-04 00:39:07
"Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I also suspect that CGAL (which apparently is not as free as boost)
> CGAL is modularized and each package has its own license.
> Many packages, like Basic Kernels, Number Types, 2D Polygons, etc are
> released under the LPGL [...]
> which is not as free as the boost license but it's close enough for most
The problem is that taken as a whole, the CGAL license situation is a
huge mess -- _most_ of the library seems to be under the ultra-obnoxious
QPL, and there are inter-package "dependencies" that sometimes cause a
LGPL'd CGAL package to more or less "depend" on a QPL'd package!
For instance, the CGAL "surface subdivision" package, which is licensed
under the LGPL, is template-parameterized with an underlying 3d polygon
type -- however the appropriate CGAL 3d polygon type uses the QPL!
I put "dependencies" in quotes, because the template parameterization
means it's a "defacto" dependency rather than hard one. However, given
the range of functionality used by the SS package, it doesn't look
particularly trivial to replace the underlying polygon type with one's
I think many users that would be otherwise OK with the LGPL would be put
off by this confusing situation, as I am.
> Furthermore, CGAL is now open-source, which means everyone can participate.
> For this reason I usually recommend people to contribute geometric libraries
> to CGAL rather than boost.
I would never consider contributing to CGAL, nor using it, until they
straighten out the licensing.
-- In New York, most people don't have cars, so if you want to kill a person, you have to take the subway to their house. And sometimes on the way, the train is delayed and you get impatient, so you have to kill someone on the subway. [George Carlin]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk