Robert Marion wrote:

You may wish to consider applying the liberal BSD (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php) or MIT (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) licenses. These are both in widespread use for open source, and impose no restrictions, aside from attribution, on the user.

Putting the license text at the top of all headers is not strictly necessary, but not a bad idea.

Robert Marion

http://www.palamida.com

...

I am interested in adopting the Boost Software license for an open source C++ library (Castor: http://www.mpprogramming.com/2.html)

[ snip ] - Does this same guideline apply to non boost projects ? The need for stating Boost.org there might confuse some users of non boost prj to think that the library is supplied by Boost. - Do all header files in my prj (which is a pure header library) need to include this text at the top/somewhere in order to adopt the license.

-Roshan

hi, i have written some primitives to be used with Boost.Accumulators, and i'm considering to make them available. these files are mostly *.hpp and depend on boost headers. under what license is it preferable that I distribute them under? thanks, e.