On 02/10/2010 01:21 AM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
"For use with" just doesn't describe the work as a possible addition to Boost (that is, in order to use it, you will have to integrate it with Boost).
That's right. I am trying to avoid saying that much because the library may never be submitted for review, much less be accepted. If the library languishes or is rejected and is developed in some other context than Boost, numerous other wordings imply more than I'd like.
"For use with" means something has been designed to work with Boost whether by extending or complementing what's provided by Boost or by virtue of ultimately being submitted for review and, hopefully, acceptance. Upon acceptance, a library author will happily change to the official logo.
And in that regard it has the semantics very close to the "powered by" variant.
Not at all. "Powered by" means a product uses Boost. Nothing more. There's no claim of interoperability with or eventual submission to Boost.
Then I don't see the difference between "For use with" and "Powered by". If there isn't (much) difference, I'm for keeping the number of logos to a minimum and leaving only one of them, the "powered by" one.
I would like the logo to make it clear that the work is tightly coupled with Boost infrastructure, as opposed
That runs counter to the concern I expressed above: that a work that is rejected and taken elsewhere requires positive action by the author to remove the strong association with Boost which is tantamount to sanction. I'd prefer a more benign association.
That doesn't mean it was or will be proposed, accepted or anything. It only means that the library follows the approach of Boost libraries, and potentially may be integrated with the Boost distribution, or even requires that to work. To me, this is the only difference from the "powered by" logo, that matters to users and the library author, and it deserves to be expressed in a separate logo.