Updating the Boost license information for 1.35?
Hey everyone, I've noticed a few things coming from this mailing list: * There's some rumblings about getting the 1.35 release out the door soon. * A list was compiled showing that uBLAS was the only Boost library that wasn't using the Boost Software License, or at least, the only one that couldn't be easily changed. <http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/05/122130.php> * With little fanfare, permission was granted to release uBLAS under the BSL last September. <http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/ublas/2007/09/2342.php> So, hey, this is great news! My question is, what do you think the chances are that 1.35 could be released under a blanket license? Since the only work required is changing some comments in some source files, it would be a shame if we had to wait another year and a half for this. Cheers, -Rick-
Rick Yorgason wrote:
Hey everyone, I've noticed a few things coming from this mailing list:
* There's some rumblings about getting the 1.35 release out the door soon.
* A list was compiled showing that uBLAS was the only Boost library that wasn't using the Boost Software License, or at least, the only one that couldn't be easily changed. <http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/05/122130.php>
* With little fanfare, permission was granted to release uBLAS under the BSL last September. <http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/ublas/2007/09/2342.php>
So, hey, this is great news! My question is, what do you think the chances are that 1.35 could be released under a blanket license? Since the only work required is changing some comments in some source files, it would be a shame if we had to wait another year and a half for this.
I've added this to my checklist for 1.35.0 --Beman
Beman Dawes wrote:
Rick Yorgason wrote:
Hey everyone, I've noticed a few things coming from this mailing list:
* There's some rumblings about getting the 1.35 release out the door soon.
* A list was compiled showing that uBLAS was the only Boost library that wasn't using the Boost Software License, or at least, the only one that couldn't be easily changed. <http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/05/122130.php>
* With little fanfare, permission was granted to release uBLAS under the BSL last September. <http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/ublas/2007/09/2342.php>
So, hey, this is great news! My question is, what do you think the chances are that 1.35 could be released under a blanket license? Since the only work required is changing some comments in some source files, it would be a shame if we had to wait another year and a half for this.
To the best of my knowledge all the source files in uBlas have been converted to the BSL - in fact I think I may have been the one who did the conversion :-) John.
John Maddock wrote:
To the best of my knowledge all the source files in uBlas have been converted to the BSL - in fact I think I may have been the one who did the conversion :-)
Most of the source files seem to have been updated, but it looks like there is still an issue with docs (see below). Could I ask you to take care of this in both trunk and release branch? Thanks, --Beman boost/numeric/ublas/detail/documentation.hpp: *L* libs/numeric/conversion/test/udt_support_test.cpp: *C* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/Release_notes.txt: *C*, *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/banded.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/blas.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/bounded_array.htm: *C*, *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/container_concept.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/doxygen.css: *C*, *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/expression_concept.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/hermitian.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/index.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/index.html: *C*, *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/iterator_concept.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/matrix.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/matrix_expression.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/matrix_proxy.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/matrix_sparse.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/operations_overview.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/overview.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/products.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/range.htm: *C*, *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/storage_concept.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/storage_sparse.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/symmetric.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/triangular.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/types_overview.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/ublas.css: *C*, *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/unbounded_array.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/vector.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/vector_expression.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/vector_proxy.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/doc/vector_sparse.htm: *L* libs/numeric/ublas/test/README: *C*, *L* libs/numeric/ublas/test/manual/sp_resize.cpp: *T*
Beman Dawes wrote:
John Maddock wrote:
To the best of my knowledge all the source files in uBlas have been converted to the BSL - in fact I think I may have been the one who did the conversion :-)
Most of the source files seem to have been updated, but it looks like there is still an issue with docs (see below).
Could I ask you to take care of this in both trunk and release branch?
Done for Trunk at revision 43607, is this a good time to merge to the release branch? John.
John Maddock wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
John Maddock wrote:
To the best of my knowledge all the source files in uBlas have been converted to the BSL - in fact I think I may have been the one who did the conversion :-) Most of the source files seem to have been updated, but it looks like there is still an issue with docs (see below).
Could I ask you to take care of this in both trunk and release branch?
Done for Trunk at revision 43607, is this a good time to merge to the release branch?
Yes, go ahead. Thanks, --Beman
Beman Dawes wrote:
John Maddock wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
John Maddock wrote:
To the best of my knowledge all the source files in uBlas have been converted to the BSL - in fact I think I may have been the one who did the conversion :-) Most of the source files seem to have been updated, but it looks like there is still an issue with docs (see below).
Could I ask you to take care of this in both trunk and release branch?
Done for Trunk at revision 43607, is this a good time to merge to the release branch?
Yes, go ahead.
OK done at revision 63616. John.
participants (3)
-
Beman Dawes -
John Maddock -
Rick Yorgason