From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-17 12:40:39
Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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
And how will not having a stable link to a specific license prevent
> 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.
Oh! If that's legal, I'm for it. However, we may have trouble
convincing authors to allow their source to be automatically
re-licensed under new terms at the whim of whoever's maintaining
-- 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