On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 11:25 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > Still, I'd prefer to hear directly from an FSF person about this because > it does seem vague. I'd like to know > a) Is LGPL meaningless for C++ libraries that provide templated types > (most C++ libraries)? > b) Is LGPL meaningless for C libraries that have macros in their > headers? > c) Is a certain amount of a) or b) OK? The Boost people, who do have lawyers (see http://www.boost.org/more/license_info.html), decided to create their own licence because of the problem of the other OSS licences not taking into account the C++ templates issue. The only problem with the Boost licence is that it is not recognized by the OSI. I am not sure if this is because it doesn't count as an OSS licence or they haven't submitted it. -- Russel. ==================================================== Dr Russel Winder +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK russel russel org uk
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part