RE: [boost] Re: License : Graph library incompatw/Boost (was incompatw/GPL)
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of David Abrahams Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 4:15 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Andrew Lumsdaine; Lie-Quan Lee; Jeremy Siek Subject: [boost] Re: License Conversion Update: Graph library incompatw/GPL
Maybe this is all a distraction. I think it may be a much bigger problem that the graph library's license, IIUC, seems to be incompatible with the Boost license requirements. Isn't anyone a little alarmed about that?
I guess if there's a chance we can relicense it under the Boost license, that'd solve things, but I'm not sure it's possible. Can any of the copyright holders comment?
Yes I'm alarmed about that. I looked at the graph library docs on the web site and they don't say anything at all about copyright or license (that I could find). I think we are (unintentionally) misleading people. People have a right to assume that any library that we have accepted has met the submission requirements which include the license requirements from http://boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License. We simply can't include a library that doesn't meet these requirements. I think we need to pull the graph library from the current release and put a note on the website explaining the situation until we get it resolved. I realize that this is a pretty drastic move, but I feel this situation calls Boost's integrity into question and that calls for swift and decisive action. How was this not caught during the review? -- Jon Kalb
"Jon Kalb" <jonkalb@microsoft.com> writes:
Maybe this is all a distraction. I think it may be a much bigger problem that the graph library's license, IIUC, seems to be incompatible with the Boost license requirements. Isn't anyone a little alarmed about that?
I guess if there's a chance we can relicense it under the Boost license, that'd solve things, but I'm not sure it's possible. Can any of the copyright holders comment?
Yes I'm alarmed about that.
I looked at the graph library docs on the web site and they don't say anything at all about copyright or license (that I could find).
I think we are (unintentionally) misleading people. People have a right to assume that any library that we have accepted has met the submission requirements which include the license requirements from http://boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License. We simply can't include a library that doesn't meet these requirements.
I think we need to pull the graph library from the current release and put a note on the website explaining the situation until we get it resolved. I realize that this is a pretty drastic move, but I feel this situation calls Boost's integrity into question and that calls for swift and decisive action.
That's too drastic.
How was this not caught during the review?
I'm not absolutely sure there's a problem. It's clearly a matter of interpretation, both of the BGL license and of the Boost requirements. I'm discussing it with Andy. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Jon Kalb wrote: ... Given your address I congratulate you on joining the CPL club. http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1561861,00.asp regards, alexander.
On Friday 07 May 2004 08:58 pm, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Jon Kalb wrote: ...
Given your address I congratulate you on joining the CPL club.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1561861,00.asp
This is off-topic for the Boost list and should be confined to private e-mail. Thank you, Doug Gregor Boost Moderator
participants (2)
-
Alexander Terekhov -
David Abrahams -
Douglas Gregor -
Jon Kalb