Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-30 19:39:40

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
> On 01/30/18 21:40, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2. The source code is generated from another project with a different
>>>> license.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmmm - could you elaborate on this please?  I'm aware I could track it
>>> down
>>> on my own, but since you've already done this, it seems much easier just
>>> to
>>> ask you.
>>
>>
>> <https://github.com/ned14/outcome/blob/master/Licence.txt>
>
>
> I believe, the author is allowed to distribute his work under multiple
> licenses. We (Boost) can only require that the version of the library that
> is proposed for Boost is licensed under the BSL. In the few files that I
> checked there is the BSL license quoted in the header comment (although a
> few files were missing any license), so it looks like the Boost.Outcome
> library is licensed under the BSL.

If the Boost.Outcome repository sources are  going to be automatically
"generated" from standalone-Outcome via scripts (currently a Travis
job?) and standalone-Outcome has all code dual licensed under Apache
and BSL, what would that mean for contributions to the Boost.Outcome
library? i.e. Would they have to be contributed to standalone-Outcome
first, under dual license?

Glen