Boost logo

Boost :

From: Kevin S. Van Horn (Kevin.VanHorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-19 12:37:32

Beman Dawes writes:

> Even something in the public domain should have a copyright, and a
> license that says it is in the public domain.

Wrong. Something that is in the public domain is not copyrighted, and no
license is needed to use it. If you intend for other people to use
public-domain code you have written, then you should include an explicit
statement that it is, in fact, in the public domain. But this is neither
a copyright nor a license; it is, to the contrary, an assurance that you
will not claim a copyright at some future date.

> The lawyers that I have talked to view a file as poison if it isn't
> covered by someone's explicit copyright and license.

What about PCCTS? It has no copyright, and is widely used and included in
Linux distributions.

> In other words, a file silent about copyright and license is seen as a
> time bomb

What about a non-copyrighted work that clearly states that the work
has been placed in the public domain?

BTW, you failed to answer the original question: is there any reason why a
license "must require that the license appear on all copies of the
software source code"? Why do I, as an author, have to place any
requirements at all on those who wish to use my code?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at