Re: [boost] boost.config was Re: License of endian and limits in Boost detail

Subject: Re: [boost] boost.config was Re: License of endian and limits in Boost detail
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-03-06 08:07:37

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Mathias Gaunard
<mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 06/03/13 13:05, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>
>> On 06-03-2013 11:48, Philip Bennefall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason I bring it up is because it goes against the Boost software
>>> license, and since a lot of libraries seem to use boost.config and thus
>>> this file in some capacity, I am unsure of what parts of Boost I can use
>>> without including this extra requirement. it would be nice if the
>>> maintainer would look into this.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> This is serious problem that needs to be fixed.
>
>
> The code is trivial and was substantially changed anyway.
> Maybe just getting rid of the copyright to SGI is an option then?

I don't think this is a legal (or fair) solution, however old or
modified that code is, unless totally rewritten from scratch. I wonder
if we could simply drop detail/limits.hpp (and always rely on
compiler-provided numeric limits) and rewrite detail/endian.hpp (so
that its functionality is integrated into Boost.Config).