Re: [boost] [GTL] - geometric template library - determininginterest

From: Miles Bader (miles.bader_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-04 22:45:33

"Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I think many users that would be otherwise OK with the LGPL would be
>> put off by this confusing situation, as I am.
>
> Of course.  But I wasn't aware of it, and probably the Polyhedron
> author, and the Board, aren't either.

Ok.  It's unfortunate that licensing is an issue, but it is.

> I consider this a "licensing bug". It might be fixable.

It would be great if it was.

>> I would never consider contributing to CGAL, nor using it, until they
>> straighten out the licensing.
>
> Fair enough.  What would you propose?

I think ultimately, any use of (or indirect dependency on) the QPL in
core code is going to cause many people to avoid CGAL -- it's a widely
reviled license and causes major practical problems.

I would suggest that the only real solution is to relicense as much as
possible -- and at least the lower-level core primitives -- under a more
friendly license (GPL compatible, drop the restrictions on
redistributing modified source).

Obviously this requires cooperation from the authors, who might object,
but I don't think CGAL's really going anywhere in the FOSS world unless
they do.

If that's not possible, I guess at least an easy-to-understand diagram
showing the "effective" (including dependencies) licensing of each
package in CGAL might at least help users be less confused.

-Miles

-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.