Gennaro Prota wrote: > The argument about contradicting the boost purpose, raised by someone > else, is totally unwarranted as well. Boost would remain exactly the > same it is now: donation would be a "side effect".
My point (being someone else) is that side effect is to fund something entirely separate to boost. If someone has an issue with that other organisation, that could lead on to rejecting boost. Also in hindsight, does exchanging money for the code have commercial implications with respect to implied contracts, liabilities and so forth in some countries? IANAL, but I have vague recollections of implied contracts being different if money changes hands. Considering the problems some people have with the corporate lawyers sneaking a license for the free code, do we want to complicate matters further? Also note: If a charity wants to set up a boost distribution there is nothing stopping it doing so. Potentially boost could offer links to anyone supporting a boost distribution separate from the main site, but that is another matter. -- AlisdairM Team Thai Kingdom _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
