From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-08 15:45:19
I doubt if there is a right answer to this one, but isn't it simplest to do what
they say and always use the form
// Additions/corrections by Joe Doe, copyright 2003
It is hardly a burden and has no significant effect, except to avoid legal
people questioning it.
Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB UK
+44 1539 561830 Mobile +44 7714 33 02 04
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Schalk_Cronje_at_[hidden]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 4:14 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Legal issues and licensing -- again
> I hate to have to bring these kind of things onto the list. Our
> legal department has gone through the licenses in the header files
> and have issues with two modules - dynamic_bitset and preprocessor.
> Both cases are related to the fact that below the copyright message
> lines such as
> // With optimizations, bug fixes, and improvements by Gennaro Prota.
> # /* Revised by Paul Mensonides (2002) */
> appear. They have an issue with the fact in both cases the person in
> question did not add an additional copyright message. Now, I am at
> odds and ends here as I am not a legal expert, but I am of the
> opinion that the legal department is wrong in this case. Can someone
> shed some light on this?
> Schalk W. Cronjé
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk