RE: [Boost-Users] What is wrong with the GLPL?

From: Jim.Hyslop (jim.hyslop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-22 09:29:24

Markus Werle [mailto:yg-boost-users_at_[hidden]] wrote:
> I just came across http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License
[...]
> 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.
Section 4 of the LGPL states:

"  4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or derivative of
it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete
corresponding machine-readable source code...."
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt)

This violates the Boost requirement "Must not require that the source code
be available for execution or other binary uses of the library."

-- 
Jim