On Nov 17, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
Hi Benoit,
On Nov 17, 2007 1:27 AM, Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jens Seidel wrote:
I'm not sure but this requires all software projects using it to use the same license? At least the autoconf archive contains a special exception to the GPL. See e.g. the bottom of http://autoconf-archive.cryp.to/acx_pthread.html
I'm not a license expert but I guess that using a GPL macro in a non- GPL project is fine, as the project doesn't require linking with code generated by the macro (since the macro doesn't generate actual code). But since I'm not an expert with licensing issues, and since, ideally, I'd like to have these macros integrated in Boost itself, I was just mentioning that I'm open to other Free licenses, if that is required.
IANAL so I'll avoid the legalities question. But...
Will you consider the Boost Software License a Free license? Or would the Boost Software License (http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) be an Open Source License and not a Free License?
I don't want to spark a debate about Free vs Open Source (if there's still a debate to be had about that) but it would be nice if you can state your position better by saying wether you'd agree to licensing your work under the BSL instead of GPLv3.
Yeah, I don't want to start such a pointless debate either. BSL is fine by me, but I'm not sure it's required for a component that is only part of the build system, not part of an actual Boost Library. -- Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna EPITA Research and Development Laboratory