On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:10:10PM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
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.
It does but I believe the usual agreement used by the FSF gives the
original authors the
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
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
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
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
Jeff Garland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Yes, that's my understanding. Thanks for the confirmation.
I understand that there are no
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
