It's worth noting that libxml2 is itself open source with what appears
to be
Boost compatible license:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html
On Tuesday, Jun 3, 2003, at 20:21 America/Denver, Darryl Green wrote:
From: William E. Kempf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vladimir Prus said:
> From: William E. Kempf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Vladimir Prus said:
> > William E. Kempf wrote:
> >>
> >> If a submitted library required libxml2, I'd personally
> vote no. If
> >> the interface was supposed to be portable to other backends, I'd
> >> probably still vote no unless at least o
William E. Kempf wrote:
I don't want to discourage you... in fact, I'd like to do the opposite. I
just haven't had the time to look at what you have so far to give any
helpful criticism, other than to emphasise that Boost discourages tight
coupling to libraries other than Boost or the standard li
Stefan Seefeld said:
> William E. Kempf wrote:
>
>> What I think *is* a requirement is that any wrapper library
>> not be tied to a single backend, and I personally believe that what
>> follows from that is that the submission must have at least 2
>> referenced backends for proof of concept.
>
>
William E. Kempf wrote:
What I think *is* a requirement is that any wrapper library
not be tied to a single backend, and I personally believe that what
follows from that is that the submission must have at least 2 referenced
backends for proof of concept.
Fair enough. What would you suggest me to
Vladimir Prus said:
> William E. Kempf wrote:
>
>>> there is no such thing as the 'Gnu licence'. There is the 'GNU
>>> General Public License' (aka GPL) and the 'GNU Lesser General Public
>>> License' (LGPL). libxml2 uses neither, and its license is fully
>>> compatible with boost's license requir
