From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-27 14:56:31
At 11:26 AM 11/26/2002, David Abrahams wrote:
>IIUC, what Beman meant when he said "what was being requested" did not
>refer to this particular case. He was referring to his own earlier
> "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.)"
>In other words, though a license on public-domain work may have no
>legal standing, it is of practical importance to be able to associate
>each file with its legal status, so a notice which says "this file is
>in the public domain" is useful.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk