Re: [boost] Re: License updates for 1.30.2

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-21 06:33:34

At 04:29 PM 9/18/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
 >"Smith, Devin" <DSMITH_at_[hidden]> writes:
 >
 >> * I recommend the following:
 >>
 >>   - Use the following text to refer to the license:
 >>
 >>     Use, modification and distribution is subject to the Boost Software
 >> License Version 1.0.
 >
 >      Use, modification and distribution is subject to Version 1.0 of
 >      the Boost Software License
 >
 >sounds more natural.  Is that OK?
 >
 >>   - Include a copy of each version of the Boost license in use by a
 >>     shipping library in the Boost distribution.  The version number
 >>     should be identifiable both from the license file's name and its
 >>     contents
 >>
 >>   - Optionally add a URL to *stable* license text, e.g.
 >>
 >>     Use, modification and distribution is subject to the Boost Software
 >> License Version 1.0 (http://boost.org/LICENSE-1.0).
 >
 >OK, I guess the only other question is, do we want to include a URL?
 >Is there any advantage?

The next comment line will be a URL for the library on the Boost site, so 
any advantage of a separate license URL seems slight. I suppose it does 
make navigation a bit easier, however.

OTOH, providing a URL tends to gloss over the fact that a copy of the 
license is also included in the distribution.

I guess I'm inclined to include the URL. Some of the readers of the license 
reference may be non-technical people who need navigational help.

How about this form (using a filesystem library example):

//  boost/filesystem/path.hpp  -----------------------------------------//

//  Copyright Beman Dawes 2002. Use, modification and distribution is
//  subject to the Boost Software License Version 1.0. (See accompanying
//  file LICENSE-1.0 or http://www.boost.org/LICENSE-1.0)

//  See http://www.boost.org/libs/filesystem for documentation.

Is that OK?

What should the wording associated with the library URL be? "See ... for 
documentation." doesn't seem quite right. The docs at that URL may be for a 
later version. The point is to direct people to the library's home page, 
particularly if they are looking at a file which has become separated from 
its documentation or is out-of-date.

//  See http://www.boost.org/libs/filesystem for library home page.

Would that be better?

--Beman