From: Tarjei Knapstad (tarjeik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-10 10:25:54
On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 16:29, David Abrahams wrote:
> > which may be construed to require the notice in binaries, and it may be
> > construed to make no such requirement. I think normal principles of
> > constructive interpretation would dictate that this clause must be
> > interpreted as making no requirement on binaries, since
> > are not mentioned in the text.
> Oh, I missed the "binary" distinction. Well, in that case I think the MIT
> license is perfectly OK.
No need to be sorry :) Legal stuff has allways been a pain for me to
understand (and for most others too I presume, as there are currently
1903242342349895 lawyers around and they all have a job).
Anyhow, we'll go with the MIT license. At least it says nothing about
relicensing (like the GPL), which should make it possible for us to
relicense if necessary.
Thanks for the feedback Dave, Joel and Carl!
-- Tarjei Knapstad
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk