On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:58:46 +0100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote
"christopher diggins" <cdiggins@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:002101c52bfe$172e6050$d9958242@heronnest...
|Throsten, I found your exagerrated overuse of question marks and the fact | that you snipped the relevant portion of my email discourteous.
Sorry, I never mean to be rude (which is not the same as I'm not), I just write what pops into my mind.
Anyway, I hope your right that the licence can somehow be used by boost.
From a larger view, I'm really excited to see companies like Adobe and Google contributing C++ libraries into the community. Since C++ doesn't have a 'natural funding source' (ie: a company with vested interests) like most industrial Languages these days, C++ is at a distinct disadvantage w.r.t cool
I think the correct answer was brought up earlier assuming someone wants to try and bring code over -- just ask them. I'm sure google has lawyers that want to earn their pay ;) But I think we are way ahead of ourselves -- I don't think we've established: 1) the form of useful library(s) that people want in boost 2) someone that has the time and desire to boostify it libs/tools -- so every bit helps. But we probably need ask if we should be turning around and attempting to boostify this code? People that want it can just go to their source project, no? Will the effort to boostify this sort of code really pay off? Wouldn't it evolve more cleanly with the project it is attached to? 2 reasons I can see for boostification are things that people want to standardize, and things that people want for other boost libs... Jeff