Boost licensing information

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
44 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
Dear Boost Members,

I'm Fabrizio Riente and I'm a researcher from the Politecnico di Torino in
Italy.
I'm using some part of boost libraries in our application.
In particular we are using boost spirit, odeint and serialization.

In the next future, we would like to release this tool for free for
research purposes.
I read that at the moment boost is released under Boost license.

I was wandering if under this license it is possible to distribute the
application for free to other universities and interested people without
sharing the source code.

Thanks in advance for your time.

Best regards.

Fabrizio Riente

--
Fabrizio Riente, Postdoctoral Research Associate
Politecnico di Torino, Dept. of Electronics and Telecommunications
C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, I-10129, Torino, Italy
Phone: +39 011 090 4241, Email: [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 04/11/17 15:32, Fabrizio Riente via Boost wrote:

> Dear Boost Members,
>
> I'm Fabrizio Riente and I'm a researcher from the Politecnico di Torino in
> Italy.
> I'm using some part of boost libraries in our application.
> In particular we are using boost spirit, odeint and serialization.
>
> In the next future, we would like to release this tool for free for
> research purposes.
> I read that at the moment boost is released under Boost license.
>
> I was wandering if under this license it is possible to distribute the
> application for free to other universities and interested people without
> sharing the source code.

As long as you comply with the Boost license terms, I don't see why not.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fabrizio Riente via Boost
> Sent: 11 April 2017 13:32
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Fabrizio Riente
> Subject: [boost] Boost licensing information
>
> Dear Boost Members,
>
> I'm Fabrizio Riente and I'm a researcher from the Politecnico di Torino in
> Italy.
> I'm using some part of boost libraries in our application.
> In particular we are using boost spirit, odeint and serialization.
>
> In the next future, we would like to release this tool for free for
> research purposes.
> I read that at the moment boost is released under Boost license.
>
> I was wandering if under this license it is possible to distribute the
> application for free to other universities and interested people without
> sharing the source code.

I presume you mean sharing *your* source code, as you can't prevent people seeing the Boost source code - that's the whole point of
the license.

You should of course claim copyright on your source; this will prevent anyone else claiming copyright.

I believe that you are free to choose whatever licence you like for *your* code.  If you want to keep it secret, then the Boost
license is probably not what you want.

You should use the Boost code by #include statements rather than copy'n'pasting into your code.

It is of course courteous (and helpful) to acknowledge use of Boost code and authors in your documentation and references.

HTH

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
+44 (0) 1539 561830




_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
2017-04-11 15:32 GMT+03:00 Fabrizio Riente via Boost <[hidden email]>:
<...>
> I was wandering if under this license it is possible to distribute the
> application for free to other universities and interested people without
> sharing the source code.

This issue often confuses users. Especially non native speakers for
whom all that perfectly measured legal words make absolutely no sense!
Seriously, I need to spend about an hour to understand what a license
is talking about. And I *know* the restrictions, it's just
unbelievably hard to convert legal words to understanding.

What's worse - BSL is not a very popular license. There's probably
only 1-2 pages in non-English languages about BSL on wikipedia. Other
wiki pages redirect from BSL to Boost libraries. So for example I can
get no information about BSL in Russian. I've tried twice to translate
BSL to Russian. Both times the wiki page was removed as a
minor/useless topic.

Could we somehow solve the issue in Boost by
* also distributing Boost under the MIT license (super extremely very
close license)
* or by summarizing the differences between BSL and MIT in simple
English like here http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/44116

And it's really an issue! I know at least 6 small Russian companies
that do not use Boost libraries because they could not get through the
license.

--
Best regards,
Antony Polukhin

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 04/12/17 21:54, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:

> 2017-04-11 15:32 GMT+03:00 Fabrizio Riente via Boost <[hidden email]>:
> <...>
>> I was wandering if under this license it is possible to distribute the
>> application for free to other universities and interested people without
>> sharing the source code.
>
> This issue often confuses users. Especially non native speakers for
> whom all that perfectly measured legal words make absolutely no sense!
> Seriously, I need to spend about an hour to understand what a license
> is talking about. And I *know* the restrictions, it's just
> unbelievably hard to convert legal words to understanding.
>
> What's worse - BSL is not a very popular license. There's probably
> only 1-2 pages in non-English languages about BSL on wikipedia. Other
> wiki pages redirect from BSL to Boost libraries. So for example I can
> get no information about BSL in Russian. I've tried twice to translate
> BSL to Russian. Both times the wiki page was removed as a
> minor/useless topic.
>
> Could we somehow solve the issue in Boost by
> * also distributing Boost under the MIT license (super extremely very
> close license)

I think, multi-license distribution would only complicate things, both
for developers and users, for no real gain.

> * or by summarizing the differences between BSL and MIT in simple
> English like here http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/44116
>
> And it's really an issue! I know at least 6 small Russian companies
> that do not use Boost libraries because they could not get through the
> license.

If you can't understand the Boost license, why would you understand the
MIT license?


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:54:06PM +0300, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:

> 2017-04-11 15:32 GMT+03:00 Fabrizio Riente via Boost <[hidden email]>:
> <...>
> > I was wandering if under this license it is possible to distribute the
> > application for free to other universities and interested people without
> > sharing the source code.
>
> This issue often confuses users. Especially non native speakers for
> whom all that perfectly measured legal words make absolutely no sense!
> Seriously, I need to spend about an hour to understand what a license
> is talking about. And I *know* the restrictions, it's just
> unbelievably hard to convert legal words to understanding.
>
> What's worse - BSL is not a very popular license. There's probably
> only 1-2 pages in non-English languages about BSL on wikipedia. Other
> wiki pages redirect from BSL to Boost libraries. So for example I can
> get no information about BSL in Russian. I've tried twice to translate
> BSL to Russian. Both times the wiki page was removed as a
> minor/useless topic.
>
> Could we somehow solve the issue in Boost by
> * also distributing Boost under the MIT license (super extremely very
> close license)
> * or by summarizing the differences between BSL and MIT in simple
> English like here http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/44116
>
> And it's really an issue! I know at least 6 small Russian companies
> that do not use Boost libraries because they could not get through the
> license.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Antony Polukhin
>

Hi Antony,

Have you considered using Google Translate?

https://translate.google.com/about/intl/en_ALL/index.html

Karen
--
Karen Shaeffer                 The subconscious mind is driven by your deeply
Neuralscape Services           held beliefs -- not your deeply held desires.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
> This issue often confuses users. Especially non native speakers for
> whom all that perfectly measured legal words make absolutely no sense!
> Seriously, I need to spend about an hour to understand what a license
> is talking about. And I *know* the restrictions, it's just
> unbelievably hard to convert legal words to understanding.
>
> What's worse - BSL is not a very popular license. There's probably
> only 1-2 pages in non-English languages about BSL on wikipedia. Other
> wiki pages redirect from BSL to Boost libraries. So for example I can
> get no information about BSL in Russian. I've tried twice to translate
> BSL to Russian. Both times the wiki page was removed as a
> minor/useless topic.

Also, translations prepared by non-lawyers are problematic.

> Could we somehow solve the issue in Boost by
> * also distributing Boost under the MIT license (super extremely very
> close license)
> * or by summarizing the differences between BSL and MIT in simple
> English like here http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/44116

I would *really* prefer the EUPL over the MIT licence. The EUPL comes in
22 languages and was written to work well in any of the major legal
systems in the world, including Russia's.

I'm currently strongly considering placing Outcome and all my Boost like
libraries under the EUPL licence. It far better matches the "Licence
requirements" at http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html than
the Boost licence does. And it comes in 22 translations as prepared by
lawyers in those languages, and those translations have undergone
multiple rounds of peer review and checking. It is a far superior
licence for Boost code.

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/eupl/og_page/european-union-public-licence-eupl-v11

Niall

--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 04/12/17 23:55, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>
> I'm currently strongly considering placing Outcome and all my Boost like
> libraries under the EUPL licence. It far better matches the "Licence
> requirements" at http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html than
> the Boost licence does.

A license that is 7 A4 pages doesn't look like one that is "simple to
read and understand".

Also, from a cursory look, it doesn't seem to require to retain
copyright notices and the license in redistributed source code. There
may be other significant differences, which is difficult to learn
quickly because of that license volume and language.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
>> I'm currently strongly considering placing Outcome and all my Boost
>> like libraries under the EUPL licence. It far better matches the
>> "Licence requirements" at
>> http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html than the Boost
>> licence does.
>
> A license that is 7 A4 pages doesn't look like one that is "simple
> to read and understand".

A licence which understands that there is a legal world outside the
United States of America and it is not the same needs to be longer.

Many would find the Boost licence insufficiently specified to give
clarity and lack of ambiguity.

> Also, from a cursory look, it doesn't seem to require to retain
> copyright notices and the license in redistributed source code.
> There may be other significant differences, which is difficult to
> learn quickly because of that license volume and language.

I don't know what you're on about here. The language is very simple.
Much clearer than say the GPL.

And the clause you didn't find is on page 3:

"Attribution right: the Licensee shall keep intact all copyright, patent
or trademarks notices and all notices that refer to the Licence and to
the disclaimer of warranties. The Licensee must include a copy of such
notices and a copy of the Licence with every copy of the Work he/she
distributes and/or communicates."

Niall

--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Could we somehow solve the issue in Boost by
> > * also distributing Boost under the MIT license (super extremely very
> > close license)
>

The MIT license is technically incompatible with the Boost license.

--
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Andrey Semashev wrote:

> Also, from a cursory look, it doesn't seem to require to retain copyright
> notices and the license in redistributed source code.

It does, see "Attribution right" in clause 5. It's not even limited to
source code.

I'm not clear on "Provision of Source Code", it's not limited to the
Original Work, so it seems to apply to derived works as well. If so, this
makes the EUPL unsuitable for Boost. We don't require source availability
for derived works.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> >> I'm currently strongly considering placing Outcome and all my Boost
> >> like libraries under the EUPL licence. It far better matches the
> >> "Licence requirements" at
> >> http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html than the Boost
> >> licence does.
> >
> > A license that is 7 A4 pages doesn't look like one that is "simple
> > to read and understand".
>
> A licence which understands that there is a legal world outside the
> United States of America and it is not the same needs to be longer.
>
> Many would find the Boost licence insufficiently specified to give
> clarity and lack of ambiguity.
>

The BSL was written with international consideration in mind. And most of
the long language you see in other licenses was deemed superfluous as it
was already covered by various international treaties and accords.
Obviously, IANAL, but that is my recollection from the various discussions
and legal team at the time of the BSL.

--
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 12/04/2017 22:18, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

>> Also, from a cursory look, it doesn't seem to require to retain
>> copyright notices and the license in redistributed source code.
>
> It does, see "Attribution right" in clause 5. It's not even limited to
> source code.

Earlier on "the Work" is defined to be the source code I believe.

> I'm not clear on "Provision of Source Code", it's not limited to the
> Original Work, so it seems to apply to derived works as well. If so,
> this makes the EUPL unsuitable for Boost. We don't require source
> availability for derived works.

It's a much weaker "non viral" copyleft than the GPL because it defers
to any of the compatible licences listed at the end if combined into a
work consisting of multiple licenced codes. I had understood that to
mean that if your EUPL code is used as a library in a bigger project, no
obligations to distribute source land on the licensee, but if they
distribute a modified copy of your library as a standalone thing, then
they can't supply prebuilt DLLs without source code.

But that requirement, now you make me think about it, does violate the
Boost licence which does allow people to derive from Boost and publish
binaries without source. Good catch.

Niall

--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 22:18, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> > It does, see "Attribution right" in clause 5. It's not even limited to
> > source code.
>
> Earlier on "the Work" is defined to be the source code I believe.

No.

"- The Work: the Original Work and/or its Derivative Works."

"- The Source Code: the human-readable form of the Work which is the most
convenient for people to study and modify."

> I had understood that to mean that if your EUPL code is used as a library
> in a bigger project, no obligations to distribute source land on the
> licensee, but if they distribute a modified copy of your library as a
> standalone thing, then they can't supply prebuilt DLLs without source
> code.

That's not how I read it.

> But that requirement, now you make me think about it, does violate the
> Boost licence which does allow people to derive from Boost and publish
> binaries without source.

We also allow binary distribution without attribution.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
>     A licence which understands that there is a legal world outside the
>     United States of America and it is not the same needs to be longer.
>
>     Many would find the Boost licence insufficiently specified to give
>     clarity and lack of ambiguity.
>
>
> The BSL was written with international consideration in mind. And most
> of the long language you see in other licenses was deemed superfluous as
> it was already covered by various international treaties and accords.
> Obviously, IANAL, but that is my recollection from the various
> discussions and legal team at the time of the BSL.

With respect, the aversion to Boost code by corporate legal teams is
very well known here. Both in the US and outside.

The superfluous wording you mention is highly important because those
international treaties were not equally enacted in each country. For
example, the US only recognises moral copyright to visual artistry
alone. Most of Europe applied that treaty to everything. China has
another application again. You need wording to indicate which enactment
applies, else it is whatever formulation applies in the court in
question rather than what the licensor intended.

I think the BSL was up to par *at the time it was written* as compared
to other software licences at that time. But the world has moved on.
Most open source orgs have released a v2.0 of their licences to reflect
the modern climate, and to reassure those corporate legal teams so the
software is less objectionable. Apache v2.0 licence is an excellent
example of a refresh to solve such worries. Meanwhile the BSL remains
firmly locked in the past.

Niall

--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list


On 4/12/17 14:52, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

>>     A licence which understands that there is a legal world outside the
>>     United States of America and it is not the same needs to be longer.
>>
>>     Many would find the Boost licence insufficiently specified to give
>>     clarity and lack of ambiguity.
>>
>>
>> The BSL was written with international consideration in mind. And most
>> of the long language you see in other licenses was deemed superfluous as
>> it was already covered by various international treaties and accords.
>> Obviously, IANAL, but that is my recollection from the various
>> discussions and legal team at the time of the BSL.
>
> With respect, the aversion to Boost code by corporate legal teams is
> very well known here. Both in the US and outside.
>

reference please

--
Michael Caisse
Ciere Consulting
ciere.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
>>> The BSL was written with international consideration in mind. And most
>>> of the long language you see in other licenses was deemed superfluous as
>>> it was already covered by various international treaties and accords.
>>> Obviously, IANAL, but that is my recollection from the various
>>> discussions and legal team at the time of the BSL.
>>
>> With respect, the aversion to Boost code by corporate legal teams is
>> very well known here. Both in the US and outside.
>>
>
> reference please

You can search this list's archives for many tales of woe when trying to
get Legal in a multinational to approve usage of Boost.

I'm not saying it's all due to the Licence, there are other causes. But
lawyers like detail, and the BSL lacks clarity. The biggest objection I
always heard from Legal(s) was patent threat, and the BSL says
absolutely zero about patents.

You may notice all the v2.0 revisions of major open source licences do
now say something about patents. That's why.

If the steering committee might be thinking of fixing the BSL, better to
adopt the Apache 2.0 licence
https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html. It has 25% of the open
source market according to Wikipedia, and it's very well recognised by
Legal, unlike the Boost licence. It isn't ideal for European
jurisdictions, but it is widely recognised here too. They know how to
deal with it upon sight, so in that sense it greatly improves on the BSL.

Niall

--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> If the steering committee might be thinking of fixing the BSL, better to
> adopt the Apache 2.0 licence
>

Also not compatible with the BSL.

--
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 12.04.2017 17:17, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> Could we somehow solve the issue in Boost by
>>> * also distributing Boost under the MIT license (super extremely very
>>> close license)
> The MIT license is technically incompatible with the Boost license.

It might be a good idea to collect such bits of wisdom in a common place
(such as the wiki). A good starting point: a list of widely known Free
Software licenses, annotated to indicate whether they meet the
requirements in
http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#License (with
explicit references to the clause they don't meet if applicable).

        Stefan

--

      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Boost licensing information

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 13/04/2017 11:15, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> It might be a good idea to collect such bits of wisdom in a common place
> (such as the wiki). A good starting point: a list of widely known Free
> Software licenses, annotated to indicate whether they meet the
> requirements in
> http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#License (with
> explicit references to the clause they don't meet if applicable).

The BSL is generally more permissive than the other popular licenses (in
particular placing no obligation of attribution or source-sharing on
distribution in binary form); that's typically where the conflicts lie.

To most users of the Boost libraries, it doesn't make any difference
either way -- they either distribute the libraries in compiled form,
which the BSL permits without complications, or they distribute their
own library/application in source form typically without redistributing
the Boost libraries themselves (instead just telling people where to
find them or expecting that they'll be able to find them themselves).

The latter approach might technically get them in trouble with their own
licenses (eg. if they're using GPL) but most people don't worry about
that either.



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
123
Loading...