From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-30 10:43:15
"Iain K.Hanson" <iain.hanson_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of David B. Held Sent: 26 November 2002 21:26
>> Perhaps a special clause that the software does not infringe on any
>> known patents or copyrights, but comes with no other warranties? I
>> have no idea what the legal status of such claims are, however.
> Thats not possoible imho. It may have expired now, but I remember
> IBM filed a patent (US) in the late 80's oe earlier 90's on Finite
> State Machines, The general form of FSM.
> Such a patent is clearly bogus and the defence of prior art would
> suceed. But I doubt that any boost author wishes to open themselves
> up to having to defend a patent writ.
My meeting with a technology lawyer at Harvard last week led me to
believe that boost authors are already opened up to having to defend
against a patent suit. We are responsible for our own actions. No
matter what we write down, if we violate copyright or patent
restrictions, we can be held liable.
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk