Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> That is true but I find that few things are impossible. Sorry for > butting into the conversation like this. I have ignored most of it but > your posting seemed somewhat objectionable. On what grounds ? > You might want to compare the Boost license with the Apache license. I > find the Boost license to be less objectionable (and much shorter) than > the Apache license. > > Boost: > http://www.boost.org/users/license.html > > Apache: > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 The original subject matter of this thread had very little to do with licensing (incidentally, both the Apache License and the BOOST License are compatible with CDDL, and meaningful license consideration discussions are within the domain expertise of the Legal Department, not the desktop-discuss mailing list), but was an introduction to a preliminary discussion about the technical aspects of using libstdcxx (the Apache Standard C++ Library) instead of libCstd.so.1, for FOSS components. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman Sun Microsystems, Inc. Stefan.Teleman at Sun.COM
