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?

Reply via email to