Stewart, Robert wrote:
Phil Endecott wrote:
Stewart, Robert wrote:
By submitting a library to Boost, you agree to put the library and its documentation under a Boost-compatible license, if it is accepted.
I just wanted to point out that submissions really ought to be under the Boost license (and I guess not just 'a Boost-compatible license') when they
I'm not sure it is required that they use the Boost License, though perhaps we could phrase that as, "By submitting a library to Boost, you agree to put the library and its documentation under the Boost License, at least, if it is accepted."
are submitted, not when they are accepted. As far as I recall this has been what has happened in the past.
I wasn't sure I could say that. What is an author to do if their library is rejected and they want to put it under a different license later? Can they really rescind the freedom of the Boost License and replace it with another? My guess is no.
They can publish new versions under a different license, or under multiple licenses, and this doesn't retroactively change the terms of their boost-candidate submission. We don't want to be in a position where a negative review result means that existing users of a candidate library have to stop using it. Or that the review manager feels pressured into accepting a borderline library because rejecting it would mean it could no longer be used by a minority of reviewers who did like it. Personally, "my lawyer" wouldn't want me to even look at code (e.g. for review) if it didn't already have a clear and liberal license. Phil.