On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Ion Gaztañaga
On 02/11/2015 1:06, Howard Hinnant wrote:
I did not intend for there to be a “binary clause" for this date/time library. My intent was to make this library have as small a legal footprint as possible.
Thanks for the details Howard. According to
http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#License
it seems to me that MIT License should be acceptable in Boost (except maybe for the last requirement below):
<quote>
[snip]
The license requirements:
[snip]
- Must not require that the license appear with executables or other binary uses of the library.
[snip]
</quote>
I'm not a lawyer but I think that the above may be violated as MIT requires the license to be included in "all copies or substantial portions of the Software" [1], which includes binary forms, IMHO. At least, that's the part that is not clear in MIT license as opposed to BSL and Boost licensing policies. In any case, one of the advantages of Boost so far has been a relatively easy legal analysis for users as all libraries are under BSL (it's not always been the case, but I think now it is). Adding a library with a different license complicates use of Boost, especially if there appear interdependencies between the proposed Boost.Chrono.Date and other Boost libraries under BSL. [1]: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT