Re: [Opencxx-users] Re: [Synopsis-devel] constant expression anal yzer and 'sizeof'

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...>]

Hi,

Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>>From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@ac...]
>>Sent: October 12, 2004 07:12
> 
> 
>>Pls. google for the answer, this subject has been beaten to 
>>death many 
>>times on different fora and seems to be religious issue, no point in 
>>bringing it here.
> 
> 
> The topic doesn't appear to be as dead as you make it sound
> (as this very thread proves). May I remind you that you were the one
> bringing the topic up, so all people are asking now is why you insist
> on not wanting to use LGPL.

"All people" means who? So far two persons were asking (you and Eric 
Hopper).

Apart of that you yourself were insisting that this topic is of not 
particular interest to others:

[previous private e-mail:]
 > I'm replying only to you since I don't think at this point
 > there is much interest for others (in particular David
 > is surely not interested in getting dragged into a license
 > discussion).

> It seems clear that *the* answer doesn't exist (not on google by any
> means), so the point of the question as I interpret it was about
> what your reasons are to refuse it.

I have already explained that LGPL is more restrictive than existing 
OpenC++ license (MIT-style). Mikolaj brings up valid arguments about 
LGPL complexity, also I treat Boost license rationale seriously.

> By the way, you asked for comments on potential licenses for future
> OpenCxx versions about a month ago. Was there any follow-up ?

Four persons responded, two of them in private e-mails (Hilde opted for 
Boost license, RodZilla would accept either of LGPL, MIT and Boost).

BR
Grzegorz