From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-27 13:22:43
At 09:53 AM 6/26/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:
>Paul A. Bristow said:
>> // (C) Jane Programmer, 2003
>> // See www.boost.org/license for license terms and conditions
>> // See www.boost.org/libs/janes-lib for documentation
>> Looks fine to me, though I prefer "Copyright" to (C)
Yes, I do too. The above was meant to be an example; the lawyers will help
with the exact wording.
>It looks simple, but would it be legally binding? For instance, say I
>release my software with this Boost license today, using the above text
>(and assuming the links point to the license, of course). Now, a year
>from now something is found to be problematic with the license and the
>lawyers tweak it. I can see a case being made that existing projects
>could from that point on be changed to be covered by this new license,
>previous releases would seem to have to be legally bound to the license
>it existed then. The above links, however, will not refer to this older
>license, but to the newer license. This seems to make the above scheme a
>little legally shakey, no? I thought you had to physically include the
>license with distributions and have the individual file licenses refer to
>this distributed license?
Yes, those are all issues.
In non-Boost code, I've seen wording something like "See the attached
license; if it is missing see www.foo.org/license." Maybe something like
that is what will be recommended.
>That's obviously a question for the lawyers, as us laymen will only be
>But it would be nice to just refer to the license instead of repeating it
>in every single file.
They've already signed off on the concept of a single copy of the license.
It is just the exact way to refer to it that hasn't been finalized.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk