From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-01 13:49:27
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Friday 01 February 2008 07:33 am, Barend Gehrels wrote:
> > What do other people think of this? Is it OK to say that the code is
> > not available at all, unless it is accepted? What are the precedents?
> > Normally, if a library is rejected then people who wanted to use it
> > still have the version submitted for review available to them. A
> > review manager who rejected this library would prevent that sort of
> > use, and that could skew their decision. I'm not going to look at the
> > code until this is resolved (my lawyer wouldn't let me); these comments
> > are based on the documentation.
> Of course you can download and look at the sourcecode, no problem. It is
> stated like this because it is not yet open source, it is not yet
> submitted or accepted by boost and at no other open source site.
> Therefore I cannot state there that it is open source at this moment.
> However, for review purposes it is allowed to look in it.
> If this is not sufficient I can change the statement.
It sounds like you think you need to get the library accepted into boost
before you can license it under the BSL. You don't need permission from
anyone but the copyright owner to release your source code under the BSL.
The boost license doesn't place any obligations on you to make any special
arrangements for distribution of the source code.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk