Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-13 12:43:20
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost <
> 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: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
> 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.
Sorry, yes, it's more accurate to say the APL doesn't meet Boost licensing
requirements. And it's not just 4.b, it's 4.a also. As both apply to
"Object form" redistribution. There's a good reason why you see
considerably more commercial products use Boost and not other OSS libraries.
-- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk