From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-10 09:56:51
>From: "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov_at_[hidden]>
> Terje Slettebø wrote:
> > I seem to have missed your point. ....
> The point is that(*) unless you really want to use copyright to "prevent
> other developers abusing the code in a non-free way" or something like
> that, there's just no rational reason whatsoever to use copyrights and
Ah, now I understood what you meant. Well, the thing is that if you don't
copyright something, it's implicitly copyrighted, anyway. This was also
pointed out by the lawyers, in this thread, regarding the implicit copyright
of any changes (even though it may be implicitly regarded as being
transferred to the main copyright holder).
This means that unless you give a license to copy, sell, etc. the software
freely, they can't, as it's copyrighted.
> well, except somewhat childish "you-shall-give-me-a-credit",
> sheesh. Just require all boost submissions/contributions to be released
> into the public domain and be done with it, really.
That's another possibility, but you still have to state that it's public
domain, in that case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk