I'd be very curious to hear the reasoning behind the change in a little more detail, but really only as another datapoint to inform my own release decisions later. I like this specific choice because every single piece of software I've ever used crypto++ in has also used boost. So this change does not add anything new to explain to other stakeholders; I already had to explain the BSL anyway.
Geoff On Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Wei Dai wrote: > Thanks to some prodding from Zooko, I've decided that the main reasons for > Crypto++ having its own license no longer applies, so I might as well > choose a standard open source license for it. The Boost Software License > (see > http://www.opensource.org/**licenses/bsl1.0<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsl1.0>and > http://www.boost.org/users/**license.html<http://www.boost.org/users/license.html>), > with an added disclaimer that the library is only copyrighted as a > compilation, seems suitable since like the current Crypto++ license it > doesn’t require the copyright notice and license to be included in object > code distributions. Does anyone have any other suggestions or comments? > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ > Users" Google Group. > To unsubscribe, send an email to > [email protected]. > More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at > http://www.cryptopp.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com.
