Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Glen Knowles wrote: > [...] >> The Common Public License already has a section in the wiki and fails >> the boost requirements as shown. >> http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License/Common_Public_License > > Yeah. That "review process" was really entertaining. Thanks for the > reminder.
Glad we could brighten your day. > "Must be simple to read and understand" is rather subjective, don't > you think? Yes. That doesn't make it unimportant. > As for "Must not require that the source code be available for > execution or other binary uses of the library"... well, what's the > problem? www.boost.org was pretty stable, thus far. The problem is that we don't want to force companies to assume the risk that www.boost.org will stick around. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost