on Sun May 27 2007, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
on Wed May 23 2007, Janek Kozicki <janek_listy-AT-wp.pl> wrote:
But here's what I've found:
<snip>
Whew. That's it. Took me one and a half an hour. Hope this helps.
Wow, thanks!
Based on above research I could tell that only boost::ublas doesn't have BSL, while all the other files are simply a mistake that can be quickly corrected...
In that case I vote for ripping ublas out of Boost unless and until the authors fix it. This is crazy; people have had long enough.
Interesting. Reading http://boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License I see that BSL is the recommended, but not required license. Above, you propose to rip out a part of Boost because it's not BSL. Can you please point me to
- A document that say BSL is an absolute requirement - A mailing list announcement that BSL is now an absolute requirement
I've no comment if such change is good or not, but I'm worried about such global decision being made silently.
I don't have time to dig these things up right now, and maybe there wasn't even a formal "announcement" per se, but it is common knowledge that the point of the BSL was to get Boost under a single license and there has been a massive, well-publicized, effort to get permissions from library authors so we could do just that. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com