From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-31 10:50:26
At 08:43 AM 8/29/2001, scleary_at_[hidden] wrote:
>> 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
>gcd_solver_t and basing the run-time algorithms off it). There's no
>violation of copyright in that.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I think you are correct.
When a submission is all fresh code (and so doesn't require carrying an
existing copyright forward), submitters should still make sure they
acknowledge the prior contribution in the documentation. Daryle has done
so in the "Credits" section of his docs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk