Hi,
I've been a Boost user for a while, both in my pet-projects and at companies
I worked for. However, for the first time I'm working at a company where we
are not allowed to use Boost because of legal issues. I remember seeing some
discussions about the Boost licenses, but I couldn't find any definite
statements in the archives.
own license. Even though the Boost library submission guidelines specify a
minimum set of requirements for licenses, those don't provide any legal
ground to stand on. Probably, some legal departments don't want to sift
through each and every source file to check the license, and they don't
trust the library submission guidelines.
It if were up to me, I would create a fixed Boost license specifying the
mimimum requirements, and explicitly putting that license in each source
file. If, as a result, this would mean that some libraries have to be pulled
out of Boost because they cannot comply to the license, then so be it. I
would much rather be able to use some of Boost at work, than all of Boost
nowhere. Possibly those (non-compliant) libraries could remain part of Boost
but be located in seperate package, such that the core package has a unique
license.
Like I said, that's only if it were up to me. Luckily it isn't up to me. I'm
not a lawyer at all, so I might be completely wrong.
In any case, my question is;
What's the status on the Boost license debate?
Thanks,
Jaap Suter
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
