On 4/8/2017 1:19 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
Anyone "in the know" have a any "inside scoop" regarding the such organization's
perspective on the "zlib/libpng" license? I tend to favor it for my own OSS
projects, since it's (in my perspective) at least as liberal as Boost, but very,
very, ultra-easy to read/understand even for an everyday layman. But I would
love to hear from anyone with more in-the-trenches experience how realistic that
really plays out in the "real world".
I wonder if maybe it would be worth my while to dual-license my OSS dlang
projects under both Boost and zlib/libpng. Anyone with real-world expertise in
the area have any ("number five alive!") eeeenput?
I'm no lawyer and have no idea and you should ask a real lawyer for real legal
advice. But it stands to reason that the more widely used a license is, the more
likely a corporate lawyer is familiar with it and has already approved it for
use in the corporation. So why not just use Boost and be done with it?