> Interesting. First thing I wondered was whether it was written in Ada,
> but it seems to be mostly C++ with bindings for Ada and other lanuages.
That's right. The complete library structure is explained here:
Ada is supported in terms of thick bindings and additional functional layer=
(the "general-purpose" part) on top of the core library, which itself was =
written in C++. That additional functional layer means that a substantial a=
mount of functionality (this includes the tasking model, which the core par=
t does not provide on its own) is in fact Ada.
> I notice there's a GPL version and a Boost-licensed version:
> Does that mean it's ok to get the Boost version and release it as part
> of an open source application?
The Boost license was intended for use in both open- and close-source proje=
cts. It is itself very liberal and similar in nature to BSD.
In short - once you have it, you can do anything with it, close it or publi=
> If yes, why not just put both versions
> on your web site (without tech support of course)? Are they
> substantially different?
They are not functionally different, but the licenses are close enough that=
publishing both of them does not make any sense (that is, GPL version woul=
d not make sense if the Boost version was available).
> If you're saying the non-GPL version is actually closed/proprietary,
> that's fine, but it would be clearer if you called it that.
The idea is similar to how AdaCore distributes GNAT - both GPL and Pro vers=
ions are essentially open-source, but are intended for distinct audiences.
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com