From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-16 05:08:38
> I would not mind to change my copyrights to use different wording ---
> the one from function library or the "standard" one. The only problem is
> is generated from
> and only Jeremy knows how.
> And related note: probably the text of "standard" license should be placed
> somewhere and you could suggest that "standard" license to authors which
> used something different, instead for suggesting to use any license
> currently used? Of course, it must be settled what "standard" is.
I think I probably jumped the gun a little here: there's going to some
discussion around here real soon now about a "standard" boost licence for
new code. At present I've been trying to flag up files that have licences
that are *almost* completely identical to common ones used elsewhere in
boost, but which are just different enough to be separate legal entities
(well probably anyway<g>). If you want to either hold off any changes for a
while that's completely OK; your existing licence is perfectly boost
compatible, it's just um, well "unique".
I'll also try and post a rundown of what licences are actually in use right
now, one I've got my code a bit more complete.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk