From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-18 19:39:30
At 09:58 AM 11/18/2002, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
>Since the issue of licenses has come up again, I'd like to ask a question
>about the license requirements. The third listed item is,
>"Must require that the license appear on all copies of the software
I wrote that text originally, probably at a time when we were only talking
about licenses that actually appeared in the source code. The sentence
should really be replaced by a more complex statement covering more cases.
>Is this a misprint? Should "must" be "may"? As it stands, this implies
>that Boost library submissions will be rejected if they are simply placed
>into the public domain, wholly unrestricted. I can't think of any good
>reason for such a policy.
Even something in the public domain should have a copyright, and a license
that says it is in the public domain.
The lawyers that I have talked to view a file as poison if it isn't covered
by someone's explicit copyright and license. In other words, a file silent
about copyright and license is seen as a time bomb, waiting to explode. (Of
course the license doesn't have to be in the source code, as long as it is
clear what license applies to the source code. IIRC, the copyright should
actually be in the source code.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk