On 01/30/18 22:39, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
On 01/30/18 21:40, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
2. The source code is generated from another project with a different license.
Hmmmm - could you elaborate on this please? I'm aware I could track it down on my own, but since you've already done this, it seems much easier just to ask you.
I believe, the author is allowed to distribute his work under multiple licenses. We (Boost) can only require that the version of the library that is proposed for Boost is licensed under the BSL. In the few files that I checked there is the BSL license quoted in the header comment (although a few files were missing any license), so it looks like the Boost.Outcome library is licensed under the BSL.
If the Boost.Outcome repository sources are going to be automatically "generated" from standalone-Outcome via scripts (currently a Travis job?) and standalone-Outcome has all code dual licensed under Apache and BSL, what would that mean for contributions to the Boost.Outcome library? i.e. Would they have to be contributed to standalone-Outcome first, under dual license?
That depends on what the contributor accepts and what the author requires of them. For example, if I contribute code to Boost.Outcome, I'm implicitly allowing distribution under the BSL but not Apache 2.0. Niall is in his rights to ask me if I'm ok to also distribute under Apache 2.0. Or reject my contribution. If I contribute to the standalone Outcome then I implicitly accept both licenses. I agree that these things need to be documented somewhere. My main point though is that I see no problem if another version of the library (not the one in Boost) is distributed under a different license.