• John Lyon-Smith (15/15) Aug 30 2004 Hey Matthew. I was having a discussion the a while ago with some fello...
• Matthew (13/29) Aug 30 2004 Yes

John Lyon-Smith <John_member pathlink.com> writes:

Hey Matthew.   I was having a discussion the a while ago with some fellow C++
developers, and I brought up the subject of STLSoft.  "There's this really cool
set of header only templates that you can use in your projects.  Check it out."
Later, I followed up with the developers, "Did you end up using the STLSoft
stuff?"  "No, we didn't like the license."   I did some checking up, and it
seems that many folks that I've mentioned STLSoft to have ended up not using
because of this clause in your license,

(ii) Any derived versions of this software (howsoever modified)
remain the sole property of Synesis Software.

I thought I'd post a quick note to ask you to just clarify your intent with this
clause.  My guess is that you don't want folks modifying the code little, and
then passing it off as their own?  Presumeably you also want to encourage
changes to be fed back to the original source code?  Alternatively, I guess you
could be trying to dissuade people from making changes.

John Lyon-Smith

"Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"John Lyon-Smith" <John_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:cgvsl4$2q4s$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hey Matthew.   I was having a discussion the a while ago with some fellow C++
 developers, and I brought up the subject of STLSoft.  "There's this really cool
 set of header only templates that you can use in your projects.  Check it out."
 Later, I followed up with the developers, "Did you end up using the STLSoft
 stuff?"  "No, we didn't like the license."   I did some checking up, and it
 seems that many folks that I've mentioned STLSoft to have ended up not using
 because of this clause in your license,

 (ii) Any derived versions of this software (howsoever modified)
 remain the sole property of Synesis Software.

 I thought I'd post a quick note to ask you to just clarify your intent with
this
 clause.  My guess is that you don't want folks modifying the code little, and
 then passing it off as their own?

Yes

 Presumeably you also want to encourage
 changes to be fed back to the original source code?

Yes

  Alternatively, I guess you
 could be trying to dissuade people from making changes.

No.

This is an issue that's been brewing for a while. In the next instalment of my
CUJ column I introduce a new open-source
library - Open-RJ - which uses the BSD license, and I say that recls and
STLSoft will both be changed over to that in
their next releases.

So, expect STLSoft to be under the BSD license in the next 2-3 weeks (from
version 1.7.2 onwards), and please continue
to recommend it to people, as an even more attractive prospect. ;) If you want
to mention this change to your previous
recommendees, all the better.

Thanks for the heads up.

Cheers

Matthew