David Abrahams wrote: [...]
Maybe this is all a distraction. I think it may be a much bigger problem that the graph library's license, IIUC, seems to be incompatible with the Boost license requirements. Isn't anyone a little alarmed about that?
Relax license requirements. There's nothing wrong with lawful reciprocal licenses. No one seem to have any problems with Eclipse (with respect to reciprocation). BTW, apropos Boost License: fix it by adding explicit copyright permission to distribute (not only "prepare") derivative works and say something about patent claims licensable by contributor which are necessarily infringed by the use or sale of its contributions. For those who don't like to follow the links: --- Altai has been viewed as a landmark decision as it incorporates many traditional principles of copyright law into a single analytical framework seemingly suitable for computer software. However, when honestly applied, the abstraction-filtration- comparison test eliminates protection for computer programs by entirely filtering out not only the individual elements of computer programs such as software objects but also the compilation of selection and arrangement expression that is the program's structure, since both are designed with efficiency in mind. [...] It is more appropriate to consider the software objects of a computer program as analogous to the gears, pulleys, and levers of a mechanical invention, as by its very nature, the design of computer software is intended to optimize functionality by making a program run faster, use less memory, or be easier for the programmer to modify. When viewed as a collection of software objects combined in such a way as to optimally perform various tasks, the design of computer software closely resembles the design of functional devices protected by patent law rather than the non-functional, non-literal elements of creative authorial works protected under copyright law. --- regards, alexander.