Timeline for Task-Based Multithreading Library - Implemented using Fibers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 31, 2017 at 17:20 | comment | added | RichieSams | I've reverted the commit that moved the asm into the main library. In addition, I have added more documentation to better identify the different licenses and what code they pertain to. See github.com/RichieSams/FiberTaskingLib/compare/… | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 16:55 | comment | added | xlrg | @RichieSams, you made the code now part of your library which is licensed under Apache 2.0. Keep the boost code in the third_party folder as you did before. - att least I've concerns to mix Apache and Boost license in one project. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 15:37 | comment | added | RichieSams | @xlrg As noted above, I have made no attempt to hide the license of the Boost code. In each of the source files, the first lines state that they are licensed under the Boost license. So, I'm not following why this counts as "relicensing". In addition, I am not publishing the code as my own. I am merely re-distributing the modified code. This is explicitly allowed under the Boost license. However, that all said, can you please elaborate how I should notate / distribute the code so that these licensing questions don't arise again in the future. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 6:21 | comment | added | xlrg | The Boost community has discussed that some weeks ago (copying code from Boost and publish in a project with another license). The conclusion was that this is unfair and not legal. Note that even open source licenses might not be compatible (lawyer with a presentation regarding to mixing open source licenses and derivative work). | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 6:18 | comment | added | xlrg | you can detect the boost version with BOOST_VERSION; context API can be selected with BOOST_EXECUTION_CONTEXT | |
| Mar 29, 2017 at 20:16 | comment | added | RichieSams | To answer your edit: The boost code in FiberTaskingLib is an edited version of boost master. So linking will not work. Secondly, the boost::context API has changed 3 times over the course of its lifetime. Detecting and forcing a specific version of boost is not fun. | |
| Mar 29, 2017 at 20:13 | comment | added | RichieSams | Taken from the boost license page: "the Boost license is not "viral": if you distribute your own code along with some Boost code, the Boost license applies only to the Boost code (and modified versions thereof); you are free to license your own code under any terms you like." | |
| Mar 29, 2017 at 19:53 | history | edited | xlrg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 42 characters in body
|
| Mar 29, 2017 at 18:14 | history | edited | xlrg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 97 characters in body
|
| Mar 29, 2017 at 11:21 | comment | added | RichieSams | The ASM files have the boost license referenced directly in the source. What is the proper way to identify the different licenses? An entry in the readme? An elaborated version of: "The main library is released under the Apache 2 license. However, the library uses code from other open source projects that have their own licenses. They are as follows: * Fiber ASM files - Boost License * GTest - New BSD License | |
| Mar 29, 2017 at 10:53 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg | @Incomputable I believe this is a perfectly valid point and a valid review of the code. Although a link to the BOOST license wouldn't hurt, and a description for how to do it correctly. | |
| Mar 29, 2017 at 7:54 | comment | added | Incomputable | I believe this would be a good comment, or even more, a flag. | |
| Mar 29, 2017 at 7:23 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Mar 29, 2017 at 10:54 | |||||
| Mar 29, 2017 at 7:02 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 29, 2017 at 7:04 | |||||
| Mar 29, 2017 at 6:58 | history | answered | xlrg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |