Date: 2003-09-16 17:57:22
<dave_at_boost-consul To: boost_at_[hidden]
Sent by: Subject: [boost] Re: License updates for 1.30.2
Please respond to
Boost mailing list
Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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 of
> >> 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 know
> >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.
If we're going to include a URL we had *really* better have a stable
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com </previous> I'm just a user, but what about including a digest (e.g., MD5, HMAC, etc.) of the license in the source? That way the exact text of the license is identifiable no matter the source at any particular point in time. I think these will hold up in US courts. Don't know about the rest of the world. May be worth checking.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk