Hi, (Comments below)
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:09:27 +0100 From: "John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> Subject: Re: [boost] Acceptable Licenses for Boost-Doc SVG Icons To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Message-ID: <07c801c7ba79$ffe90960$27850252@fuji> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Peter Foley wrote:
*snip*
Rather than risk proposing icons that are not licensed appropriately and then find that the license type was not acceptable I thought I would solicit feedback first.
I have two questions for you to answer:
The first question is: Would image files be "required to" or "the preference is" use the BSL.
Given that until now we have used the stock Docbook XSL icons, which decidedly aren't BSL, I don't think we can afford to be too fussy.
Just my 2c worth.
John.
Ok that sounds promising.
From the DocBook FAQ http://tinyurl.com/3xux36 it appears that DocBook is distributed under a modified MIT/X Consortium license. I don't haven't DocBook installed at the moment so cannot confirm this.
I am planning to wait a week from the original posting of my e-mail before forming an opinion either way (ie must be BSL or can be other similar open source license). I hope that most people agree with your stance ("... I don't think we can afford to be too fussy.") this will at least provide the boost community with a greater chance/choice of finding icons that we find appealing and have it covered by a similar open source license. Thanks for your input into this John, Peter.