In article <k6k8CuAP25W6Ew2z@ntlworld.com>, Francis Glassborow wrote:

(Discusion context: boost.org does not accept contributions released under
an (L)GPL license.)

> In article <93ftu0$6r2$1@news1.xs4all.nl>, Wil Evers <bouncer@dev.null>
> writes
>
> >Agreed.  However, my guess is that a library released under the auspices
> >of Boost has a much higher chance of being considered for standardization
> >than one released by My Software Shop In The Anonymous Namespace.
>
> Exactly, but we cannot consider it for standardisation unless the
> copyright release has been made.  It is the essence of standard
> libraries that others can improve their performance without constraints
> (other than that they are constrained by the specified design)

Wait a minute.  Are you suggesting the committee will ignore a proposal for
some future standard library facility, if it is augmented by a sample
implementation released under the LGPL?  That would certainly be a surprise
to me.

(Please note that the LGPL does not prevent anyone from implementing a
proposal.  It does, however, require that modifications to an LGPL'ed
sample implementation are donated back into the public domain.)

- Wil

--
Wil Evers, DOOSYS IT Consultants, Maarssen, Holland
[Wil underscore Evers at doosys dot com]


      [ Send an empty e-mail to c++-help@netlab.cs.rpi.edu for info ]
      [ about comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: do this! ]

[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]