At 01:10 PM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote: >Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote: >>>"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>>> Glenn -- >>>> >>>> Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of >>>> boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW... >>>> >>>> >>>>> A licensing question for everyone: >>>>> >>>>> Is there any problem with submitting, for possible inclusion in >>>>> Boost, a library that was previously released under the GNU GPL? >>>>> The submission would, in its new incarnation, be covered by a >>>>> license that meets the Boost criteria. It would be submitted by >>>>> the original copyright holders and would include no modifications >>>>> made by others who received the library under the GPL. >>>> >>>> Since the original copyright holders are effectively changing the terms >>>> I don't see why this would present a problem -- they are certainly free >>>> to change the terms. >>> >>>I have not answered because IANAL, so I have no clue whether this is >>>legally sound or not. >> >> I'm no lawyer either, but it's not unusual for the owners >> of code to release it under both GPL and another license. >> The other license is usually more restrictive, but I can't >> see that it matters. > >If it was ever accepted by GNU, I think the authors had to sign it >over to the FSF. Did they? Does that matter? I don't know the >answers.
If they signed it over they don't own it any more. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost