From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-16 08:59:48
At 08:27 AM 9/16/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>Beman Dawes wrote:
>> At 09:30 AM 9/15/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> > Shouldn't this be:
>> > // See Boost Software License Version 1.0 for terms and conditions
>> That question came in discussions with the lawyers. The short answer
>> was "no".
>> I'm having trouble remember the full rationale, but gist of it was
>> that there isn't a need to identify the version, since the license is
>> included in the distribution.
>OK, but if you are looking at the source file in isolation, how do you
>which distribution it came from?
You would have to look at CVS or past releases. Part of the rationale for
also including a URL in an additional comment is to allow that. That's more
than many open source and commercial projects do - for example, the Python
folks don't even put copyrights in their source files.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk