29 Oct
2009
29 Oct
'09
1:04 a.m.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM, JD <jean.daniel.michaud@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 5:51 pm, Ruediger Berlich <ruediger.berl...@iwr.fzk.de> wrote:
JD wrote:
Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved.
the SF page currently lists loglite as being covered by the LGPL, while some source files I looked at are under the Boost license. Is all of loglite under the Boost license ?
I haven't spend much time thinking about this but the story is, I wrote the library initially for boost and chose the boost license. When I checked in the code on googecode, the boost license was not available in the list. I wonder which one is more permissive.
The Boost license by far. LGPL is still not usable by most corporate entities.