From: Benoit Sigoure (tsuna_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-17 15:00:35
On Nov 17, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> Hi Benoit,
> 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
>> 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.
Yeah, I don't want to start such a pointless debate either. BSL is
fine by me, but I'm not sure it's required for a component that is
only part of the build system, not part of an actual Boost Library.
-- Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna EPITA Research and Development Laboratory
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk