Date: 2003-09-22 17:36:38
<bdawes_at_[hidden]> To: Boost mailing list <boost_at_[hidden]>, boost_at_[hidden]
Sent by: cc:
boost-bounces_at_list Subject: Re: [boost] Re: License updates for 1.30.2
Please respond to
Boost mailing list
At 05:13 PM 9/21/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Unless someone comes forward with a strong
>> argument, I think we should leave the "the" in.
>We can leave the "the" in if there's a comma before "version", IMO.
Yes, it definitely reads better with a comma. Let's go that route.
To recap, the example comment will be:
// Copyright Jane Programmer 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)
At the risk of beating a dead horse, and not that it would ever happen, but
who arbitrates disputes if the text of accompanying LICENSE-1.0 differs
from the text found at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE-1.0 at some time in the
future? If boost is going to assume [the] responsibility for protecting
the integrity of electronic records over time, wouldn't prudence suggest
the addition of something like a message digest (e.g., MD5 or SHA-1)?
Ok, I've spent WAY too much time around these AAA drafts [but note that I
didn't ask for authentication (e.g. HMAC) this time]. ;) Please don't
I'll go quietly now...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk