Boost logo

Boost :

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
> [1] 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
unknown BSL.


ned Productions Limited Consulting

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