On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 06:50 -0400, Stewart, Robert wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
[snip]
My original version only required a Boost-compatible license upon acceptance. There was concern that perhaps that should be upon submission. Indeed, Phil Endecott said he wouldn't look at a candidate library otherwise. I wasn't sure I could or should specify that. I look forward to hearing from others on that point. In the meantime, I've reworded that part to indicate the need for that upon submission.
I would prefer to require to use the boost license upon submission. And not a Boost-compatible license. Don't we require a boost license already for acceptance? [snip]
_____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com