RE: [boost] Legal issues and licensing -- again

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

Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]   Mobile [phone]
Mobile mailto:pabristow_at_[hidden]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]

> -----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.
> and
> 	# /* 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
>