Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Sean Parent wrote: >> > [...] >> >> Dealing with copyright and patent issues in IP is all about risk management >> >> for a corporation and limiting their exposure. The deeper the corporate >> >> pockets the more conservative a stance the organization will tend to take. >> > >> > Right. >> > >> >> >> >> What Adobe looks for is that: .... >> > >> > Right. >> > >> > Public domain <http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1390498> aside, >> > you might want to take a look at: >> > >> > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php >> > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html >> >> Why? Is there something about these licenses which warrants our >> attention more than the plethora of other open-source licenses >> floating about? We probably can't review all of them... > > You probably can ADOPT one of them [with whatever changes you might > want/need to add] and require all contributors to accept it for each > and every contribution to boost.
That's a non-answer. We could "ADOPT" (and would you please stop shouting; I'm getting tired of having to ask) any of the plethora of other open-source licenses that are floating about, with whatever changes we want/need to add. What makes the IBM license more worthy of consideration than, say, the BSD license? And as to whether we will require that contributors adopt a central Boost license or not, that question is still open. -Dave -- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost