>I've been working on an automated tool to extract and present a list of
>boost licences in effect for a given boost library (or collection of
>files).
>Although the tool is working well, it's throwing up a lot of licences that
>are used by just one or two files, and which are only very subtly different
>from licences in use elsewhere in boost (by different I mean that they use
>different words, not just formatting, or punctuation). My guess is that
>most of these are accidental changes, and if that is the case then it would
>make things a whole lot easier if they could be changed to match other
>existing boost licences - from a lawyers point of view, why should a
>commercial body wanting to use Boost have to review 50 almost but not quite
>identical licences, when just two or three variants would do?
>
>Thoughts, comments?
A single standard Boost licence is really the best solution for most libraries, IMO.
A draft should be ready in a few days.
--Beman
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
