Re: [boost] RE: Corporate legal department reaction to Boost license

From: Mark Rodgers (mark.rodgers_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-16 09:51:50

From: "James Curran/MVP" <jamescurran_at_[hidden]>

> The problem here is "What happens if we accomplish the stated
> goal of the Boost project:  To create a library to be added to the next
> C++ Standard?"   It must be assumed that most compiler implementers will
> just take the current Boost release, change "namespace boost" to
> "namespace std" and ship it with their compiler.  Would this force all
> end users of MSVC or gcc or Comeau to also include the Boost
> acknowledgement?  Wouldn't this require them to know which particular
> pieces of the Standard came from Boost?  Should we therefore ask them to
> acknowledge libraries that are already in the Standard, like vector<> or
> complex<>?

The HP copyright on the STL read

 * Copyright (c) 1994
 * Hewlett-Packard Company
 *
 * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software
 * and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
 * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and
 * that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear
 * in supporting documentation.  Hewlett-Packard Company makes no
 * representations about the suitability of this software for any
 * purpose.  It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.

This was copied from BCC's vector.h (which also has the Rogue Wave 
copyright).  Given this precedent, I don't see why Boost shouldn't use 
a similar licence - functional.hpp's is strikingly similar :-).

Mark