Hi Christian, The MIT and BSD licenses are pretty much the same, and I much prefer the Boost license over both of these. My thought was merely to throw out the suggestion, to see if anyone found it interesting. To Domagoj Saric: I would not be able to write one on my own as I am only on Windows at present, but I would certainly like to contribute if someone were to pick up such a project. Kind regards, Philip Bennefall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Holmquist" <c.holmquist@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Library suggestion - audio IO On 16 June 2011 15:05, Philip Bennefall <philip@blastbay.com> wrote:
Hi Christian,
They do in terms of functionality, but the license for PortAudio for example, is BSD style and is rather unsuitable for my application. I am writing middleware, and using BSD or LGPL code would mean that my end users would have to include a lot of license text in their distributions just because my middleware uses certain components. The Boost license does not require this. There are plenty of other implementations of many things found in Boost (graph algorithms, string processing, regular expressions, date/time etc etc), but the Boost versions are still very much called for.
From portAudio: "In terms of legal compatibility, the PortAudio licence is now a plain MIT licence" Adding a copyright notice seems a cheap price compared to re-inventing a beast of this kind.
- Christian _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost