Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Library suggestion - audio IO
From: Philip Bennefall (philip_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-16 16:54:26

Hi Christian,

The MIT and BSD licenses are pretty much the same, and I much prefer the
Boost license over both of these. My thought was merely to throw out the
suggestion, to see if anyone found it interesting.

To Domagoj Saric: I would not be able to write one on my own as I am only on
Windows at present, but I would certainly like to contribute if someone were
to pick up such a project.

Kind regards,

Philip Bennefall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Holmquist" <c.holmquist_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Library suggestion - audio IO

On 16 June 2011 15:05, Philip Bennefall <philip_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Christian,
> They do in terms of functionality, but the license for PortAudio for
> example, is BSD style and is rather unsuitable for my application. I am
> writing middleware, and using BSD or LGPL code would mean that my end
> users
> would have to include a lot of license text in their distributions just
> because my middleware uses certain components. The Boost license does not
> require this. There are plenty of other implementations of many things
> found
> in Boost (graph algorithms, string processing, regular expressions,
> date/time etc etc), but the Boost versions are still very much called for.
>From portAudio: "In terms of legal compatibility, the PortAudio licence is
now a plain MIT licence"
Adding a copyright notice seems a cheap price compared to re-inventing a
beast of this kind.

- Christian
Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at