"Jon Kalb" <jonkalb@microsoft.com> writes:
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?
I guess if there's a chance we can relicense it under the Boost license, that'd solve things, but I'm not sure it's possible. Can any of the copyright holders comment?
Yes I'm alarmed about that.
I looked at the graph library docs on the web site and they don't say anything at all about copyright or license (that I could find).
I think we are (unintentionally) misleading people. People have a right to assume that any library that we have accepted has met the submission requirements which include the license requirements from http://boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License. We simply can't include a library that doesn't meet these requirements.
I think we need to pull the graph library from the current release and put a note on the website explaining the situation until we get it resolved. I realize that this is a pretty drastic move, but I feel this situation calls Boost's integrity into question and that calls for swift and decisive action.
That's too drastic.
How was this not caught during the review?
I'm not absolutely sure there's a problem. It's clearly a matter of interpretation, both of the BGL license and of the Boost requirements. I'm discussing it with Andy. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com