Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

"Bronek Kozicki" <brok@rubikon.pl> wrote in message news:4239ED44.5090508@rubikon.pl... | under BSD 2.0 license | http://code.google.com/ |

Hm...would anyone volenteer to boostify https://sourceforge.net/projects/goog-perftools/,

Can't be done, due to the license. Regards, m

----- Original Message ----- From: "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:22 AM Subject: [boost] Re: Re: google going open source

"Martin Wille" <mw8329@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:423A9629.4050800@yahoo.com.au... | Thorsten Ottosen wrote: | > "Bronek Kozicki" <brok@rubikon.pl> wrote in message | > news:4239ED44.5090508@rubikon.pl... | > | under BSD 2.0 license | > | http://code.google.com/ | > | | > | > Hm...would anyone volenteer to boostify | > https://sourceforge.net/projects/goog-perftools/, | | Can't be done, due to the license.

Well, what a great gift to the open source community then !

-Thorsten

The BSD license is as flexible as the Boost license. It is also more widely used, understood and recognized than the Boost license. Come to think of it I think Boost should switch to the BSD license, or at least but accepting of code released under the Boost license. The excellent STLSoft libraries by Matthew Wilson ( http://www.stlsoft.org ) are BSD licensed. I am not a legal expert, but I see no reason one can not add a Boost license to code already licensed under the BSD version 2.0. It just makes for a screenful of disclaimers for every header. -Christopher Diggins

----- Original Message ----- From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 11:48 AM Subject: [boost] Re: google going open source

christopher diggins wrote:

...

I am not a legal expert, but I see no reason one can not add a Boost license to code already licensed under the BSD version 2.0. It just makes for a screenful of disclaimers for every header.

The BSD 2.0 has the advertisement clause even in binary use. The Boost license requires unrestricted binary use.

Are you saying that BSD requires the copyright notice along with executables? If so, I read it differently: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." It seems unreasonable to consider using and compiling a library in an executable as a binary redistribution of a derived work of the library. I do realize the Boost library does contain: "... unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor." Isn't this legal exception just paranoia, or is there actual legal precedent to warrant it? Christopher Diggins Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL) http://www.ootl.org

----- Original Message ----- From: "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:03 PM Subject: [boost] Re: Re: google going open source

"christopher diggins" <cdiggins@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:008c01c52be0$4ee8b770$d9958242@heronnest... | | Are you saying that BSD requires the copyright notice along with | executables?

| "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above | copyright notice,

That seems pretty clear to me; how else would you interpret the quote????

-Thorsten

I thought I made my interpretation perfectly clear in the part of the email you snipped: "It seems unreasonable to consider using and compiling a library in an executable as a binary redistribution of a derived work of the library" I consider a binary redistribution of a library (or derived work from a library) to be an object file, a .dll, or .zip file. An executable does not in any way resemble a source code library in form or function, which logically implies that it is not a "redistribution in binary form". Like I said, I am not a legal expert which is why I asked about legal precedent. Throsten, I found your exagerrated overuse of question marks and the fact that you snipped the relevant portion of my email discourteous. Christopher Diggins Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL) http://www.ootl.org

"christopher diggins" <cdiggins@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:002101c52bfe$172e6050$d9958242@heronnest... |Throsten, I found your exagerrated overuse of question marks and the fact | that you snipped the relevant portion of my email discourteous. Sorry, I never mean to be rude (which is not the same as I'm not), I just write what pops into my mind. Anyway, I hope your right that the licence can somehow be used by boost. br -Thorsten

Jeff Garland wrote:

[...]

...

From a larger view, I'm really excited to see companies like Adobe and Google contributing C++ libraries into the community.

I second that. Even though Adobe is a member of the BSA and Google isn't as squeaky clean as they like to present themselves, kudos to both for their OSS initiatives.

But we probably need ask if we should be turning around and attempting to boostify this code? ...2 reasons I can see for boostification are things that people want to standardize, and things that people want for other boost libs...

And I second this question as well. While code analysis tools are definitely useful, they don't appear to take the form of a library, par se (or perhaps I didn't look closely enough). And it seems even less likely that such a tool would become part of C++. It almost seems like asking to Boostify the GNU profiler or gdb. While those are fine tools, they do just fine on their own without being a part of Boost. BJam is a Boost tool, but it isn't a Boost library. Perhaps we could sanction Google's offerings as "Blessed Boost tools", but leave it at that? Dave

Martin Wille <mw8329@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

...

"Bronek Kozicki" <brok@rubikon.pl> wrote in message news:4239ED44.5090508@rubikon.pl...

...

under BSD 2.0 license http://code.google.com/

Hm...would anyone volenteer to boostify https://sourceforge.net/projects/goog-perftools/,

Can't be done, due to the license.

Nothing prevens contacting copyright holder and asking. License they selected is liberal enough to demonstrate that they are willing to share their efforts with everyone. B.