From: Jim.Hyslop (jim.hyslop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-16 13:04:36
Paul A. Bristow [SMTP:boost_at_[hidden]] wrote:
> But it doesn't say anything different from the simple version
> in my view, except it _requires_ acknowledgement.
> Is this essential - it would be most dis-courteous not to of course,
> but is it necessary to make it essential? If a project contains
> very many software elements, acknowledge might become a significant
I don't think it should be essential.
The Boost library is _expected_ to be incorporated into a larger piece of
work. Acknowledgement is nice, but not (IMO) necessary.
If the work is intended to be redistributed as-is (or with very minor
modifications), then I think acknowledgement would be desireable. But if it
is simply incorporated in binary format, does the end user really care
whether the software was written totally in-house, or whether it uses
pre-built libraries? I doubt it.
Hmmm... I wonder. How would other manufacturers in different industries
react, if their suppliers started demanding acknowledgement in the end-user
documentation? Automobile manufacturing, for example. I can just see owner's
manual for my new car. It is over 2000 pages long. Operational instructions
take up the first 150 pages, and the rest is filled with stuff like this:
Portions of this automobile produced by Nuts&Bolts R Us, Inc.
Portions of this automobile were assembled with Simian Wrench Works
Portions of this automobile use items patented by We're Smart Engineers,
patent numbers 12345678 and 12345679.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk