From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-18 11:29:35
>From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> "Kevin S. Van Horn" <Kevin.VanHorn_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Since the issue of licenses has come up again, I'd like to ask a
> > about the license requirements. The third listed item is,
> > "Must require that the license appear on all copies of the software
> > source code."
> > Is this a misprint? Should "must" be "may"? As it stands, this implies
> > that Boost library submissions will be rejected if they are simply
> > into the public domain, wholly unrestricted. I can't think of any good
> > reason for such a policy.
> I confess that I was surprised to see this when I looked over the
> requirements recently. I don't know what the history of this
> requirement is, though it appears from "cvs annotate" that this file
> was written by Beman in July 2000 and that this particular line hasn't
> changed since then.
Isn't "public domain" a licence, as well? As I understand, a work is
automatically protected by copyright (with or without explicit notice in the
work), until it enter public domain automatically, after some decades.
However, to make it public domain from the start, it is my understanding
that you then have to tell that it is public domain, such as in a notice in
the work. I guess that's the reason for requiring a license (including
telling that it's public domain) to be present in the sources, as they are
otherwise protected by copyright.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk