Re: [boost] Boost licensing information

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 <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so
>> urce_software_licenses
>>
>> 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 [1]
> 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