From: Darren Cook (darren_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-16 18:06:10
> If we're going to include a URL we had *really* better have a stable
> license, no?
Not if the URL contains the version number.
As this is just going to be a block that authors will copy and paste I think
more information is better. E.g.
// foo library header
// Copyright Jane Programmer, 2003.
// See Boost Software License Version 1.0 for terms and
// conditions of use (http://www.boost.org/license.1.0.html)
// See http://www.boost.org/libs/foo/ for documentation.
On a related subject, I always find it useful to be told a license is either
GPL, BSD-like, or if neither of those then be told the differences from one
of those in short, simple terms. I expect most programmers understand those
two, and most programmers hate to read licenses.
>> >> > 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk