On 4/8/2017 1:19 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
Anyone "in the know" have a any "inside scoop" regarding the such organization's perspective on the "zlib/libpng" license? I tend to favor it for my own OSS projects, since it's (in my perspective) at least as liberal as Boost, but very, very, ultra-easy to read/understand even for an everyday layman. But I would love to hear from anyone with more in-the-trenches experience how realistic that really plays out in the "real world".I wonder if maybe it would be worth my while to dual-license my OSS dlang projects under both Boost and zlib/libpng. Anyone with real-world expertise in the area have any ("number five alive!") eeeenput?
I'm no lawyer and have no idea and you should ask a real lawyer for real legal advice. But it stands to reason that the more widely used a license is, the more likely a corporate lawyer is familiar with it and has already approved it for use in the corporation. So why not just use Boost and be done with it?
