David Abrahams wrote:
on Tue May 29 2007, Christopher Woods <cwoods_eol-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
Questions (from the novice/newbie/outsider):
1) Is it a *requirement* for any new libraries that are submitted for review, currently under review, or reviewed/accepted but not yet in the Boost distribution accept the BSL?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "yes." An undocumented requirement, but still...
Good but I think it should be a clearly documented requirement of acceptance to "Boost".
2) Are there any other libraries of Boost that are dependent upon uBLAS?
Not AFAIK.
Good - that means that if you do decide to pull it from Boost you aren't going to end up ripping out lots of other libraries as well.
Or maybe because you don't work in a company where the lawyers can't don't like complication, or because you can't see how having one exception causes pressure to allow more exceptions.
Certainly having many cases (as in before the BSL push/adoption) was harmful if not impossible. I understand and agree with the need for a single license but when you are down to 1-2 "stand-alone" cases then the harm to boost is fairly minimized is it not?
Reduced, but IMO not acceptable.
I understand that a single exception can leave an opening/pressure to allow others. However many things in this world fall under "Grandfather Clauses" because they were around before requirement/restriction/law X was put forth and adopted. If it's understood by all that "that was the way it was then and this is the rule/law/restriction now" then there really isn't any pressure IMHO and hence the basis for how I was suggesting to potentially treat uBLAS. If that's unacceptable that's perfectly fine my me - I was just throwing it out there for consideration.
They could review BSL, find it sufficient and then say to their developers "you can use Boost except for uBLAS"
In some cases, they don't trust the developers. uBLAS would actually need to be removed from the code to which they have access.
Understood. Thanks for your responses, -Chris