Subject: Re: [boost] Microsoft vs The Boost License
From: Jens Weller (JensWeller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-05 15:53:37
> Gesendet: Samstag, 05. August 2017 um 16:04 Uhr
> Von: "Phil Bouchard via Boost" <boost_at_[hidden]>
> An: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: "Phil Bouchard" <philippeb8_at_[hidden]>
> Betreff: [boost] Microsoft vs The Boost License
> Just to put everybody in context:
> 1) Microsoft had invested into Corel so that they get rid of Corel Linux
> back in 2000 when I was working there:
> 2) Microsoft once again copied my Fornux PowerCalc after I had presented
> it to them using some web interface:
> With their Microsoft PowerToys:
So this is personal?
> 3) And now here I am with Microsoft trying to copy the idea behind
> root_ptr's node_proxy:
> With their "deferred_ptr heap":
> So for some reason I do not trust Microsoft. And I was wondering if the
> Boost license protects us from an idea behind a library we wrote.
> Otherwise this makes the Boost license not very useful.
You should have some more evidence, that there is a relation between Herbs gcpp, and your root_ptr.
Btw. Herb presented this last year in his CppCon keynote:
So thats why its fairly well known in the community.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk