Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>>"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Glenn --
>>>
>>> Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
>>> boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
>>>
>>>
>>>> A licensing question for everyone:
>>>>
>>>> Is there any problem with submitting, for possible inclusion in
>>>> Boost, a library that was previously released under the GNU GPL?
>>>> The submission would, in its new incarnation, be covered by a
>>>> license that meets the Boost criteria. It would be submitted by
>>>> the original copyright holders and would include no modifications
>>>> made by others who received the library under the GPL.
>>>
>>> Since the original copyright holders are effectively changing the terms
>>> I don't see why this would present a problem -- they are certainly free
>>> to change the terms.
>>
>>I have not answered because IANAL, so I have no clue whether this is
>>legally sound or not.
>
> I'm no lawyer either, but it's not unusual for the owners
> of code to release it under both GPL and another license.
> The other license is usually more restrictive, but I can't
> see that it matters.
If it was ever accepted by GNU, I think the authors had to sign it
over to the FSF. Did they? Does that matter? I don't know the
answers.
--
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
