Boost logo

Boost :

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.


Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at