In the pre-meeting chatter for SG16 there was some conversation about
proposed libraries and how ready they might be for adoption into
implementation stdlibs. Some of the conversation was around "ugly style"
and namespaces.
However, it's my understanding that license is a much more serious issue as
to whether an implementation of a proposal can be pulled in to an
implementation. I suspect that almost no non-trivial libraries have been
imported directly, that is ones that aren't essentially fully defined by
their synopsis.
The question is if implementers can examine the source, if the library
source is not encompassed in the standardisation proposal. I have heard
that there are concerns that the Boost license addresses. I am not sure
what those are, specifically. In particular with respect to a reference
implementation of a proposal.
Can we address this, somehow, in the proposals without changing the
licensing of the reference implementation? I am assuming that ISO rules
already prevent patent traps and such.