From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-20 09:39:55
From: Beman Dawes <beman_at_[hidden]>
> Bernard HUGUENEY wrote:
> >I think you meant patented, enjoying life in a software-patent free europe,
> >I'd hate to miss useful compression
> > libraries because of US laws. Couldn't we have a ./non-us (a la debian, I
> >think for RSA before it went free in us)?
> Boost isn't going to get into that.
> Boost can define generic compression concepts and interfaces. There are
> plenty of good non-patented compression schemes that can be used to
> implement those concepts and interfaces.
Of course, with the US Patent Office churning out thousands of
software patents there is every chance that some Boost code already
violates some patents. If so I wonder if Boost itself is liable, or
if responsibility rests on those who use Boost to create an actual
If Boost is liable what are we supposed to do about it?
I myself refuse to read any patents, on the grounds that knowingly
violating a patent is a worse crime than unknowingly doing so.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk