Re: [boost] License question

Subject: Re: [boost] License question
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-13 09:12:58

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of David Bellot
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:24 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] License question

> I'm working on a new library for some specific A.I and machine learning
> problems and I will release it as a Free Software of course.
> However, I wonder if you guys can enlighten me regarding license.
> 
> This library will be template-based for some parts and compiled for other
parts. I
> don't want to restrict users in what they're doing with the library, I
mean they
> can use it for open-source or closed-source products.
 
> So question:
>  - do I have to use a Boost license or a LGPL license ?
>  - and why not using GPL directly or is it too restrictive ?

If you (might) want it to be part of Boost, you must choose the Boost
license.

Many commercial organizations regard LGPL (and of course GPL) with deep
suspicion.
IMO You will decrease commercial use by using either LGPL or especially GPL.

> However, I want to decently protect my work and because it's
template-based
> and can be used in commercial products, I don't want someone to do closed-
> source fork of it and all those kind of things...

Copyright remains your protection with Boost License.

I'm not sure that in practice any of these licenses protect against abuse -
who is going to pay to sue them?

So I'm not sure why you *not* want to use the Boost License?

Usual not-a-lawyerly caveats ;-)

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]