Subject: Re: [boost] loglite - A logging library
From: JD (jean.daniel.michaud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-29 09:23:20
On Oct 29, 2:04 am, OvermindDL1 <overmind..._at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM, JD <jean.daniel.mich..._at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 5:51 pm, Ruediger Berlich <ruediger.berl..._at_[hidden]>
> > wrote:
> >> JD wrote:
> >> > Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved.
> >> the SF page currently lists loglite as being covered by the LGPL, while some
> >> source files I looked at are under the Boost license. Is all of loglite
> >> under the Boost license ?
> > I haven't spend much time thinking about this but the story is, I
> > wrote the library initially for boost and chose the boost license.
> > When I checked in the code on googecode, the boost license was not
> > available in the list.
> > I wonder which one is more permissive.
> The Boost license by far.
> LGPL is still not usable by most corporate entities.
The boost license is still not available on google code.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I though the LGPL was exactly made for
that. The use of open source project in a commercial environment.
But I'm open for counseling on that point, licensing is really not so
important to me, as long as people doesn't claim ownership on the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk