From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-10 09:29:11
From: "Carl Daniel" <cpdaniel_at_[hidden]>
> I'm a bit confused by your reply, since the MIT license as presented
> to me to be simply a more verbose version of the text which appears in
> boost files, for example:
> // (C) Copyright Beman Dawes 2002. Permission to copy,
> // use, modify, sell and distribute this software is granted provided
> // 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 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
> are not mentioned in the text.
Oh, I missed the "binary" distinction. Well, in that case I think the MIT
license is perfectly OK.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk