From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-16 22:10:19
Darren Cook <darren_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > 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.
That would be stable by definition, unless you mean to change the
text of the thing that the versioned URL points at.
> 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.
Yes, that's exactly what I would've suggested.
> 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
Would you care to draft a comparative document that can be added to or
linked to from the license info page?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk