From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-29 06:39:41
> > I think the problem is that the entire clause can be viewed as
> > warranties against patent infringement/copyright violation/etc. The
> > question is whether it is possible to protect both library authors and
> > potential users. I don't see where else the buck can get passed.
> > a special clause that the software does not infringe on any known
> > patents or copyrights, but comes with no other warranties? I have no
> > what the legal status of such claims are, however.
> > Dave
> In practice, Boost authors (and reviewers) will have made their best
> ensure that they don't know of any patent infringement and/or copyright
> violations. Perhaps we can say this without exposing the authors to too
> risk? (As David rightly observes, I am not worth suing!)
> But ultimately, the user must surely assess and take the risk. However, a
> statement "not known to infringe copyright or patent" may help the user
> the risk.
Hard to make any patent guarentees I think, as I'm sure the inventors of the
.gif format would attest to.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk