From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-17 08:24:11
On Nov 17, 2007 1:27 AM, Benoit Sigoure <tsuna_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jens Seidel wrote:
> > I'm not sure but this requires all software projects using it to use
> > the same license? At least the autoconf archive contains a special
> > exception to the GPL. See e.g. the bottom of
> > http://autoconf-archive.cryp.to/acx_pthread.html
> I'm not a license expert but I guess that using a GPL macro in a non-
> GPL project is fine, as the project doesn't require linking with code
> generated by the macro (since the macro doesn't generate actual
> code). But since I'm not an expert with licensing issues, and since,
> ideally, I'd like to have these macros integrated in Boost itself, I
> was just mentioning that I'm open to other Free licenses, if that is
IANAL so I'll avoid the legalities question. But...
Will you consider the Boost Software License a Free license? Or would
the Boost Software License (http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) be an
Open Source License and not a Free License?
I don't want to spark a debate about Free vs Open Source (if there's
still a debate to be had about that) but it would be nice if you can
state your position better by saying wether you'd agree to licensing
your work under the BSL instead of GPLv3.
-- Dean Michael C. Berris Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc. [http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/] [mikhailberis_at_[hidden]] [+63 928 7291459] [+1 408 4049523]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk