What is wrong with the GLPL?

From: Markus Werle (yg-boost-users_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-22 04:34:32

Hi!

I just came across http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License
where it is stated that any boost library license

- Must be simple to read and understand. 
- Must grant permission to copy, use and modify the software for 
  any use   (commercial and non-commercial) for no fee. 
- Must require that the license appear on all copies of the 
  software source code. 
- Must not require that the license appear with executables or other binary 
  uses of the library. 
- Must not require that the source code be available for execution or other 
  binary uses of the library. 
- May restrict the use of the name and description of the library to 
  the standard version found on the Boost web site.

At the same place one can find

"Restricted licenses like the GPL and LGPL are not acceptable."

I may have overlooked something, but I feel like the LGPL meets the 
requirements above. Could You please explain or point to further 
information about this issue.

This is not intended as a political discussion (though it might turn 
to that) I am just trying to find the best free license model for my own 
yet-to-publish Expression Template Library.

Thanks,

Markus