Francesco, Yes, the out-of-date copright file needs to be updated, and yes we need to include the information about blanket permission to relicense as Boost Software License. These omissions are simply oversights will be addressed in a short while.
But I want to clear up one remaining concern: On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 12:44:03AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:58:34 -0500 Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > What is worse, it seems there's no permission to distribute > > > the Boost Graph Library in compiled form. > > > > The headers are only distributed as sources, so that should be OK, > > even if annoying and possibly non-free (see below). > > It's non-free if I cannot distribute a compiled form of the library (it > is acceptable if I'm required to distribute source too, in order to > distribute a compiled form --as in copyleft licenses--, but forbidding > compiled code distribution fails DFSG#2). Ignoring bgl-viz (which we concluded is OK), the boost graph library is template code and therefore *cannot* exist in compiled form. For me, this renders moot the fact that the license is silent on compiled form. The license fails to grant us permission to do something that cannot be done. That doesn't sound like a problem to me. Do you agree? -Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
