Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-13 09:49:22

On 04/13/17 10:12, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
> On 13/04/2017 00:04, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost <
>> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> If the steering committee might be thinking of fixing the BSL, better to
>>> adopt the Apache 2.0 licence
>> Also not compatible with the BSL.
> The BSL is compatible with the GPL, so I find it very hard to believe
> that Apache 2.0 is incompatible.
> Source:
> Source:

I believe it is more correct to say Apache 2.0 does not meet Boost
requirements to the license in that it is more restrictive than the BSL.
In particular, BSL has no requirements similar to those in Apache 2.0
[1] Section 4 item b.

Also, unlike BSL, Apache 2.0 is not compatible with GPLv2, only GPLv3,
which is not as popular.

The boilerplate comment that is recommended to be used to apply the
license, and the license itself, are significantly longer than those of
BSL. I'll remind that this thread has started from someone having
difficulty reading and understanding the BSL, and Apache 2.0 is not
likely to improve on that.


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