On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergström wrote: > On 08/31/12 06:43 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote: >> While I recognize the value of each one of the points you make, I am puzzled >> as to why you are not going forward on your way with your fork? How is the >> Apache Foundation keeping you from making progress on your use of the >> library? > For our use it's not and I welcome any patches/help. > > It may be missed opportunity for getting a larger userbase and a moot point > anyway. Specifically FBSD - When trying to push it as part of c++ stack > replacement or part of ports the only objection I got was licensing related. > (At this point they could also argue missing c++11 support) [...]
IIUC, you would want to see STDCXX getting more exposure; one such avenue would involve having it used in FreeBSD as a ports package, with an all permissive BSD license. > While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed. Solution - move it > away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the additional > rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense. I thought > this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some reason instead > of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip and pushing to the > attic. The fact that Rogue Wave agreed to release the STDCXX code back in 2005 is nothing short of a miracle. IMHO, we are lucky to benefit from having had this library released to the public, anyway. L
