Re: [Boost-users] [license] Why is the Boost license not an official Open Source license?

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:58:48 +0200, Gennaro Prota wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:43:36 -0700 (PDT), Cromwell Enage wrote:

...

IIRC a submittal was sent a while back (maybe almost a year ago). No word on whether the submittal even got to its destination. However, the Free Software Foundation does list the BSL as a GPL-compatible license. (See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.)

Which doesn't mean much, to be honest. I'd like to state clearly that boost is *not* free software

With a terminology stress which (to me) twists the meaning of "free software" it could be classified as "non-copylefted free software" (which basically means, anyone can redistribute it under a non free license; in the case of boost they can do that only if they don't redistribute the source code) -- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]