Subject: Re: [boost] loglite - A logging library
From: JD (jean.daniel.michaud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-29 09:23:20
On Oct 29, 2:04 am, OvermindDL1 <overmind..._at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM, JD <jean.daniel.mich..._at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 5:51 pm, Ruediger Berlich <ruediger.berl..._at_[hidden]>
> > wrote:
> >> JD wrote:
> >> > Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved.
>
> >> the SF page currently lists loglite as being covered by the LGPL, while some
> >> source files I looked at are under the Boost license. Is all of loglite
> >> under the Boost license ?
>
> > I haven't spend much time thinking about this but the story is, I
> > wrote the library initially for boost and chose the boost license.
> > When I checked in the code on googecode, the boost license was not
> > available in the list.
> > I wonder which one is more permissive.
>
> The Boost license by far.
>
> LGPL is still not usable by most corporate entities.
The boost license is still not available on google code.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I though the LGPL was exactly made for
that. The use of open source project in a commercial environment.
But I'm open for counseling on that point, licensing is really not so
important to me, as long as people doesn't claim ownership on the
library ...
JD