Subject: Re: [boost] [ann] C++ Archive Network
From: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-15 20:11:35
On 15 March 2016 at 21:49, Jens Weller <JensWeller_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. MÃ¤rz 2016 um 14:46 Uhr
> > Von: "Egor Pugin" <egor.pugin_at_[hidden]>
> > An: boost_at_[hidden]
> > Betreff: Re: [boost] [ann] C++ Archive Network
> > > Side note: you will not gain any friends here by publishing your code
> > > GPL (which could also be the reason why nobody responded to your email
> > > far).
> > I'm publishing the package manager. Client (GPL-ed) is only a tool.
> > At the moment I'm the only author of client, so it can be relicensed
> > very easily.
> > What do you suggest? Boost license (as we're in this list)? MIT? BSD?
> I think for a standalone application its ok to be GPL.
> But probably you should make the functionality of your package manager
> available as a library in LGPL/MIT/BSD/boost.
Similar thinking for me: an open source end-user tool is ok to be not
but not if it is supposed to be a critical part of the user's
> Unsubscribe & other changes: