Re: [boost] Do Jamfiles need copyrights?

From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-06 08:03:54

On Thursday, February 06, 2003 6:57 AM [GMT+1=CET],
Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Recently had a talk with a patent-laywer from Philips. I deduced following
> from this conversation (my own interpretation and IANAL)
>
> Copyright is automatic. From the moment you make something, you own the
> copyright (so
> actually no explicit copyright statement is necessary although it is
> advised). From the
> moment you change a file that is copyrighted by somebody else, copyright
is
> shared (of course, generally the copyright does not allow you to make
> modifications)
>
> Now open-source projects (including boost) want to provide more rights to
> the user as the default copyright allows. So we add a copyright notice
also
> indicating a license. This license is necessary to allow others to make
> modifications, distribute it etc.
>
> So that's why the boost source-code can be considered open-source. However
> if a Jamfile
> does not contain a license, default copyright-right apply and thus the
> Jamfile can not be distributed by others than the copyright-holder.
>
> So we certainly need to add a license statement and at the same time might
> indicate
> the copyright too (Indicating the license is still the most important
> aspect).

This all corresponds pretty well to what lawyers have been telling me.
Also, remember that Sean parent asked that when the license requires a copy
of itself in all "copies", it should say "copies of the source code", just
to avoid misunderstanding about any requirement to include it in
executables.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com