> I was wondering whether the choice of license is really strictly
> limited to those found in the dropdown when registering a new project?

> I'm thinking of publishing my "libborg" (code-name, not definitive)
> project on code.google.com. It uses the boost c++ libraries
> extensively and is meant to provide generic APIs for many concepts (i/
> o, fs, markup, gfx, gui, dsp) found redundantly across many frameworks/
> libraries. It allows to write algorithms based on the generic API and
> thus to decouple your collection of algorithms/solutions from the
> particular framework (or even language) used. It will provide proper
> concept checks, archetypes and tests for all the generic interfaces.
> It is an almost header-only library because e.g. the binding of an
> algorithm using the generic XML API to the libxml2 interface is done
> at compile time using template-metaprogramming techniques, which
> results in binary code as fast as calling the libxml2 (C) API
> directly.
> The source tree (and an external project on sourceforge, "jsmm", which
> will eventually be merged in) also contains experiments on language
> interoperability, wrapper generation à la swig, cross-language-
> reflection. involvement of boost::python and cint à la ROOT from CERN.
> A lot of things will be derived/generated from Boost C++ headers and
> from 3rd party libraries with more restrictive licenses like GPL and
> end up in object code together with private or commercial rather than
> open code. However, as the libborg is only a very thin layer of glue
> and a set of tools allowing the user to achieve more decoupling it
> should have a license with the most possible freedom and I'd consider
> the boost license as most appropriate.
> Would the New BSD license probably be an alternative for this?