From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-17 11:42:35
At 11:12 AM 9/16/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>> >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?
>> No, because past releases (which include the license) are available
>> both from CVS and the SourceForge release mechanism.
>Still, it seems easy enough to establish such a stable link. It
>seems like it's better to be safe than sorry.
Sorry, I haven't been clear. It is a "stable link" to a specific license
that would be a disaster. It would negate our objective of having a single
Boost license for all Boost libraries, because when the (even though rare)
license changes occur, there would be sure to be some copyright holders who
weren't reachable, and thus the licenses would diverge. Some would be
version 1, some version 2, and so forth.
An important advantage of the suggested comment wording is that it is not
version specific. In effect, the copyright holder is saying "use the
version of the Boost license that is current at the time of release, even
if that version changes from release to release."
The safe thing to do is to not mention a version by name.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk