Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in a Boost.Chrono/Date library
From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-11-01 19:06:22
I did not intend for there to be a âbinary clause" for this date/time library. My intent was to make this library have as small a legal footprint as possible.
Here is ad-hoc "legal advice" on the subject that I did not write, but which agrees with my understanding:
which contains this phrase:
> In addition to the UIUC license, the runtime library components of LLVM (compiler_rt, libc++, and libclc) are also licensed under the MIT License, which does not contain the binary redistribution clause.
Also, I specifically did not choose the boost license because I did not want people to get a mistaken impression that this library was part of boost (had been peer reviewed by boost).
And while Iâm happy to have Vicente (or anyone else) run this library through the well-respected boost peer review process, I am not at this time agreeing to alter my version of this library with the result of that peer review.
My intent is that people can take this library and do whatever they want with it, including putting it into boost and modifying it in the process. Including selling it, getting rich, and never paying me a dime. The only restrictions Iâm aware of are:
1. The MIT copyright remains intact in the source.
2. You canât sue me, at least not because of this software.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk