Walter Bright, el 15 de noviembre a las 18:27 me escribiste: > Don wrote: > >I think the GNU stuff is a bit different, because the GPL is an > >aggressive license -- the FSF intends to defend the license, > >taking offenders to court. Legal battles are expected, and having > >a single legal entity makes it easier to win the case. > >By contrast, the Boost license exists solely for the benefit of > >the users, giving them a guarantee that court cases will _not_ > >occur. > >I think that throughout Boost all of the authors retain their > >original copyright. > > It's true that GPL has an agenda that is not always in its users' > best interests. The Boost license does.
It's always in its users best interests, except when the users violates the license :) The GPL is always protecting the user, giving them the 4 basics rights. It doesn't protect intermediaries who want to use a free/libre library and close it up, but it's always in the *end user* best interests. That might be not be always practical in the corporate/business world (you can make business with the GPL too, though, there are plenty of examples), but that's a different issue, and I agree that to have the most wide acceptance, a language stdlib should use something more liberal, making the Boost license a good one. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- More people die from a champagne-cork popping, than from poison spiders
