Re: RFE. Boost C++.

[Jeremy Noetzelman]

Offhand, I do believe that the 'freely licensed' requirement they refer to
wouldn't apply to (L)GPL'd software, as the GPL isn't free in the sense
that it places requirements upon licensees.

In fact, http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm explicitely states that
Boost can't accept (L)GPL'd submissions.

It might be better suited to take some of the interesting things out of
Boost and reimplement them into CC++ instead.  Besides, then nobody will
have to deal with the horrific build system Boost uses ;)

On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, David Sugar wrote:

> Ali,
>
> I had not been fully aware of Boost as a resource for vetting free
> implimentations of libraries as a precursor for standards proposal
> before.  In that Boost seems to require free (freely licensed) source
> available implimentations, I see no fundimental conflict with that, or
> even with the work of the ansi/c++ draft committees in regard to what we
> choose to do in GNU.
>
> Further, in some ways GNU Common C++ was intended to address
> shortcommings of the existing C++ ansi standard library by directly
> addressing functionality (sockets, threads, synchronization,
> serialization, etc) that they choose at the time to ignore :).  In that
> respect, the mission of GNU Common C++ does seem consistent and related
> to the stated goals of Boost.  In that regard, it would seem there is a
> real basis for further discussion about what Boost is doing and how it
> relates to what we are doing in GNU Common C++.
>
> David
>
> Ali-Reza Anghaie wrote:
>
> >I'd like to submit a RFE. Basically I'd like to suggest that the Boost
> >C++ project and GNU Common C++ get together and work on integrating
> >their projects.
> >
> >Regards, -Ali
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>