Subject: Re: [boost] Boost licensing information
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-13 22:26:14
Niall Douglas wrote:
> > Hypothetically, yes. In practice, no. If it's not BSL, it's not going
> > into Boost.
> That's a pretty arrogant statement.
It's just putting the status quo in words. I'm not making an "ought"
statement, I'm making an "is" statement. The BSL is a de-facto requirement.
Do you think that all libraries in Boost use the BSL by some sort of a happy
accident? How would you estimate the chances of that coincidence?
The reason all Boost libraries use a single license is to ease adoption.
Once the BSL is cleared by legal, ALL of Boost is cleared by legal. If
libraries could pick a license, every library would need to be cleared
This is enforced by the Inspect tool, see
For the record, the decision to use the BSL wasn't mine, I didn't write the
Inspect tool, the decision to add a BSL check in it wasn't mine, and the
rationale to use a single license for each and every file in the
distribution isn't mine either.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk