Re: [Boost-users] [license] Why is the Boost license not an official Open Source license?

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-27 13:05:22

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:58:48 +0200, Gennaro Prota
<gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:43:36 -0700 (PDT), Cromwell Enage
><sponage_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>IIRC a submittal was sent a while back (maybe almost a
>>year ago).  No word on whether the submittal even got
>>to its destination.  However, the Free Software
>>Foundation does list the BSL as a GPL-compatible
>>license.  (See
>><http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>.)
>
>Which doesn't mean much, to be honest. I'd like to state clearly that
>boost is *not* free software

With a terminology stress which (to me) twists the meaning of "free
software" it could be classified as "non-copylefted free software"
(which basically means, anyone can redistribute it under a non free
license; in the case of boost they can do that only if they don't
redistribute the source code)

--
[ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]