Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-13 10:27:40
> 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
>  Section 4 item b.
It is correct that Apache 2.0 licence imposes more requirements. That's
its merit over the BSL.
> 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.
You are allowed to, and indeed encouraged to, provide just a URL to the
licence text. Besides, Apache 2.0 is a very popular and well understood
licence. You don't need a large boilerplate, unlike the relatively
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk