Date: 2001-11-29 14:18:48
--- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> From: <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > --- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> > > From: <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > >
> > > > I'd go a step further and require a license.txt file for each
> > > > library, UNLESS the library uses a (hypothetical) standard
> > > > license.
> > >
> > > ... *and* doesn't depend on libraries that don't use the
> > hypothetical
> > > standard Boost license.
> > Point taken.
> > > This isn't really going to save time, though. Every source file
> > still needs
> > > to be inspected.
> > Why?
> I am definitely not a lawyer but it looks to me that _not_ having a
> license.txt file doesn't really have any legal meaning. If a
> source file has an embedded license it will override the "no
> implied license.
Well, my thought process was that the source files would reference
the shared Boost liscence and be done. Peer review would insure that
a library either does this, or provides their own license.txt. Then
legal types can quickly give preliminary approval based on the good
faith of the peer review. Granted, the legal types are likely to
also want to do a more thorough check to insure accuracy here, but at
least the process has been sped up.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk