On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:50:18 -0400, Justin Spahr-Summers
<justin.spahrsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:47:30 +0000 (UTC), retard <r...@tard.com.invalid>
wrote:
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:41:44 -0500, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:
> Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new
> projects:
>
> Apache License 2.0
> Artistic License/GPL
> Eclipse Public License 1.0
> GPL v2
> GPL v3
> LGPL
> MIT License
> Mozilla Public License 1.1
> New BSD License
>
> Obviously, the GNU licenses are out of the question (listed only for
> completeness). But of the rest, are any compatible with the Boost
> license used for Phobos? Dual-licensing is always an option too, but
> certainly a lot uglier.
They're all compatible with Phobos. The point was to make Phobos as
compatible as possible with various kinds of other licenses. What you
probably wanted to know is whether code contributions to Phobos can be
licensed under these licenses. They probably want to use the same
license
(Boost in this case), if possible.
Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host
on Google Code, because it's been the most reliable and functional
(free) project hosting I've found, and I'd love to entertain hopes of
eventually submitting the code as a Phobos module.
Sorry, none of them are compatible with submitting to Phobos without
dual-licensing. However, since Boost is compatible with all of these, you
could make the project MIT, for example, and then have each file licensed
under Boost.
