On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 15:11:50 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 10:15:36 UTC, Roman D. Boiko
wrote:
Actually, I prefer Boost only because it is slightly more
popular […]
Not to argue about the Boost license being popular in the D
community, and not that the question would really matter, but
what leads you to this general conclusion? I couldn't find any
credible statistics on a quick Google search, but a numer of
well known projects use the/a MIT license (X, Ruby on Rails,
Mono, Lua, …).
David
I wish I could delete that post :) My claim is not based on any
research.
However, I prefer Boost because:
"The Boost Software License is based upon the MIT license, but
differs from the MIT license in that it:
(i) makes clear that licenses can be granted to organizations as
well as individuals;
(ii) does not require that the license appear with executables or
other binary uses of the library;
(iii) expressly disclaims -- on behalf of the author and
copyright holders of the software only -- the warranty of title
(a warranty that, under the Uniform Commercial Code, is separate
from the warranty of non-infringement)
(iv) does not extend the disclaimer of warranties to licensees,
so that they may, if they choose, undertake such warranties
(e.g., in exchange for payment)."
http://ideas.opensource.org/ticket/45
