David Abrahams wrote:
/* This file is part of Qt and is available under the Q Public License, available from http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/license.html */
Is adding such a string acceptable? Clearly we need to do something, but what?
Given the analysis at http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_Licens e/Qt_Public_License_-_QPL
I should not that all requirement which are failed by QPL mention "library". There's nothing about examples.
I think it would be _much_ better if we could replace these files with homegrown equivalent, or have the BBv2 tests download the files automatically.
Ok, I happened to have some small Qt program I wrote myself, so I've changed the example to be based on that program, and now it has my copyright.
Anything we have in the boost tree whose license doesn't make it "free for any use" is going to be a barrier to adoption.
I'm still curious. You say "barrier to adoption". How many users really think it's a barrier? Do they really that picky when it comes to files which are not parts of any library, and so are not linked with? - Volodya