Re: [boost] Boost License Issues

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
 >statement that:
 >
 >    "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.

That's correct.

--Beman