On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 19:54:48 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
MIT's *much* easier to understand though. Boost has some real
goofy, obfuscated wordings. Although it's *worlds* better in
that regard than the completely impenatrable GPL or Creative
Commons.
Comparing http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT and
http://opensource.org/licenses/bsl1.0.html, I would not conclude
that Boost is more difficult to understand.
My favorite license, zlib (
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Zlib )
doesn't have this #2 issue, and it's even easier to read and
understand than
MIT.
Plus it doesn't say anything like "to any person", so it should
take care of
#1, too. (Although personally, I think I like MIT better in
that regard:
It's a deterrent against corporations, which gives it a little
bit of the
benefit of the GPL, but without all the bullshit.)
Here I do not agree either. Assuming that we would *want* such
"benefit", MIT does not provide it.
As for zlib, it is very different from MIT/Boost, thus it is
difficult to compare them (for non-lawyers).
License is a tool, and its up to SDC authors to select one. I
just wanted to provide some information so that another option
(Boost) is considered.
