--- In Boost-Users@y..., "Jeff Garland" <jeff@c...> wrote:

...

Thanks for the input so far. I too would like to call for some blanket license that all boost developers agree to (if possible). It looks like I'll be contacting developers individually and trying to get them to sign something for us. Not fun for either side I guess.

This didn't go into 1.29, but I went ahead and put a license page in the documents for the date_time library that so that you hopefully that would serve as a single point of reference instead of having to go to each source file. So I'll be interested to know if your lawyers will accept that approach. If they do, then we might be able to....

Have a summary table for all of boost:

bind boost standard license date_time boost standard license foobar_lib see http://libs/.... ....

Oh, and where possible authors could adopt the boost standard license, if we had such a thing. Seems like there has been some previous discussion of this. I'm guessing that a big percentage of the libraries would adopt it b/c for all practical purposes the licensing isn't that much different. But someone has to draft it, post it to the developer group and get the ball rolling.

Brian you seem like the logical 'draftee' since you are already having to sort thru this mess :^)

Jeff

Well I was hoping to make a more technical contribution to boost some day, but this will have to do for now... :) We are in the process of figuring out what our lawyers want. I will pass along anything I learn as soon as I find out. Thanks, Brian