Date: 2000-05-07 19:28:07
Ok, so the idea here is to prevent someone from taking a boost
library, making all kinds of bad modifications, and then
redistributing it and claiming that it is an "official boost library".
In practice I'm not sure how big a deal this really is, but having
this kind of clause in the GGCL license would make my advisor feel
This kind of clause doesn't prevent modification or redistribution, it
just restricts what you call the thing that gets redistributed.
Beman Dawes writes:
> >4. May contain restrictions about what is considered the
> > "Standard Version" of the library. The version available
> > at the boost cite would be the "Standard Version".
> > (similar to clauses in the artistic license)
> I'm not sure I understand this one. I tried the Perl version of the
> artistic license, failed to parse it after two reading and gave up.
> Could you explain in a bit more detail? Sorry I'm so dense.
> Thanks for following up on this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk