Date: 2001-08-29 07:43:21
> Since this is modified code from rational and pool,
> I think you should obey the respective Copyright notices.
> IMHO, it does not make much sense to repeat the whole Copyright
> statements (which would be necessary if you took
> the Copyright literally),
> the Copyright notice, however, should mention
> all the names of the other Copright notices.
I'm no lawyer, but I don't see this as necessary. AFAICT, the header
supplied by Daryle does not contain "modified code" (at least not from
Boost.Pool) -- rather, I think what he did was observe how we implemented
it, and then did it himself (actually better -- I like the idea of providing
gcd_solver_t and basing the run-time algorithms off it). There's no
violation of copyright in that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk