Le 19/04/2012 17:23, Roman D. Boiko a écrit :
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
Very good point. Is it too late to change again ?
By the way, what is the status of the attribution clause ?
