"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote:
"Walter Landry" <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote in message news:20040602.224424.33319794.wlandry@ucsd.edu...
Darren Cook <darren@dcook.org> wrote: [...]
If so I wonder if the GSL authors would be open to a dual, boost-compatible license so that a boost library could borrow code as it needed to, rather than having to re-invent the wheel.
Almost certainly not. They are not even willing to entertain going to the LGPL. There used to be a blurb on their website saying that if you can't handle the GPL, then use something else.
Do you suppose it's legal to write a Boost-compatible C++ interface on top of GSL?
Since the Boost license is compatible with the GPL, it would be legal to write, compile, and distribute a C++ interface. But it wouldn't gain you anything license-wise, since the C++ interface plus GSL would still be effectively licensed under the GPL. The GSL authors did this on purpose. They don't want to allow proprietary software to use GSL. Regards, Walter Landry wlandry@ucsd.edu