RE: [boost] Re: License updates for 1.30.2

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-15 14:10:49

It is for this purpose that I suggested a Digital Object Identifer DOI.org

This provides an indirection.

But it is not a priority for now perhaps.  And perhaps it is too expensive?  Can
any academic institution provide it for free?

Paul

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

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of David Abrahams
| Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:43 PM
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: [boost] Re: License updates for 1.30.2
|
|
| "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
|
| > Beman Dawes wrote:
| >>
| >> Physically, that means editing all source files to reflect the new
| >> license. Here is what the start of C++ source files should look like:
| >>
| >> //  foo library header
| >>
| >> //  Copyright Jane Programmer, 2003.
| >> //  See accompanying license for terms and conditions of use.
| >
| > Shouldn't this be:
| >
| > // See Boost Software License Version 1.0 for terms and conditions of use.
|
| I'm not sure if that's precisely the right answer, but I think it's on
| the right track.  I *am* sure we haven't fully explored how references
| to the detached license should work yet.
|
| Do we also need a stable URL at which v1.0 of the license can be
| found even after LICENSE is replaced with v2.0?
|
| --
| Dave Abrahams
| Boost Consulting
| www.boost-consulting.com
|
| _______________________________________________
| Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
|
|