>Matt Hurd wrote: >> >> >The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive license >> >right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission must >> >still be included according to the draft license. >> >This would lead to a license text like: >> <snip> >> >> I am a little confused. Like Jaakko, I read it as viral. >> >> If you produced a derivative work, or copy paste a little code, then you >> are bound to include the boost license which makes your source open as >> well... >> >> Seems akin to LGPL. >> >> Is this the intention or have I misread it? > >"derivative works of the Software" != "the Software"
Sorry, I must be having a bad hair day... I still read it as including the copyright in derivative works from the second paragraph... I would prefer to see acknowledgement of the origin/author(s) as viral. Still confused but I am a little slow, Matt. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
