Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Chris Glover (c.d.glover_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-13 16:09:07
> > That's a pretty arrogant statement.
> > It's down to the review manager in question at the time of review.
> > Unless you're the review manager, your vote is just one of many
> > Niall
> It is significantly more complicated than that. If it isn't BSL it would
> need to be reviewed by SFC's counsel and we would need to weigh the
> benefits over the confusion.
>From my point of view, as a boost user at a company, I can tell you that if
boost had different licenses on different libraries, that would be a
problem for me. It is extremely handy that we can be confident that all of
the code in the boost distribution is under a common license.
If a particular library wants to be dual licensed, that's probably fine,
but one of those licenses had better be BSL.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk