From: Carl Daniel (cpdaniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-10 08:45:10
"David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> I think it's pretty clear that the license does not satisfy the Boost
> requirements. I don't see how there's any room for uncertainty, but maybe
> I'm misinterpreting something here?
I'm a bit confused by your reply, since the MIT license as presented appears
to me to be simply a more verbose version of the text which appears in many
boost files, for example:
// (C) Copyright Beman Dawes 2002. Permission to copy,
// use, modify, sell and distribute this software is granted provided this
// copyright notice appears in all copies. This software is provided "as
// without express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to its
// suitability for any purpose.
What exactly about the MIT license concerns you? I can only assume it's the
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
which may be construed to require the notice in binaries, and it may be
construed to make no such requirement. I think normal principles of
constructive interpretation would dictate that this clause must be
interpreted as making no requirement on binaries, since binaries/executables
are not mentioned in the text.
Perhaps I'm wrong though...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk