Re: [boost] [simd] Hardware support

Subject: Re: [boost] [simd] Hardware support
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-09 16:08:32

On 4/9/17 1:30 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

>> #1 is critical. Without it being done there's nothing to review.
>
> I'd tend to agree with Robert's view on this. If it's under the Boost
> licence, then it's just like any other library.
>
> If copyright weren't a problem, I'd suggest the Apache 2.0 licence which
> gives stronger guarantees to the end user (a Boost library doesn't
> actually have to have the Boost licence, it's just strongly
> recommended). But you don't own the copyright to the entire library.

When I first read this I thought it was wrong.  I always thought that
a boost license was a requirement for inclusion in Boost.  It turns out 
that I been wrong about this.

http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#License

So I guess it's more correct to say that

a) if a library has Boost license, fine it can be reviewed.
b) if a library has a Boost Compatible license, it can also be reviewed.

But it's not clear to me who determines this.  I guess this would be the 
review wizard who decides to add (or not add) a library to the review queue.

c) If a library doesn't have a Boost compatible license, it can be added 
to boost so there is no point to subjecting it to review.

The Boost Compatible license is important because it allows users to 
incorporate boost code with confidence that there will likely be no 
legal issues arising from such incorporation.

I hope that we can all agree on the above.

There is one issue still pending.  Suppose one submits a library with a 
compatible license which incorporates code which from another source in 
such a way that the right to use the incorporated code is in question. 
I'm not really sure, but it seems that Mathias has (among other things) 
raised this as an issue.  I would guess that places the onus on Joel to 
explain why he feels that this is not a problem in this case and finally 
the review wizard will have to consider the point in his decision to 
accept the request to place the library in the review queue.

I'm aware that decisions such of this can never be resolved 
definitively.  It's a feature of the legal system that the more time is 
expended, the more it serves the system rather then the rest of us. 
Basically they get paid to bikeshed. That's why we like to stay away 
from it.

But, I'm hopeful that we can get legitimate concerns addressed one way 
or another in an expedient way so we can all move forward.

Robert Ramey