[boost] Re: [Boost-announce] enable_if review

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-08 12:41:42

Jaakko Jarvi <jajarvi_at_[hidden]> writes:

> In our last exciting episode David Abrahams wrote:
>> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (windows-nt)
>
>> Thomas Witt <witt_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> > Only the sandbox version carries a boost compatible license. This is
>> > to avoid the repackaging effort. The final version will carry the boost
>> > license as the files in the sandbox do. So the license is a non-issue as
>> > far as this review goes.
>> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>> Well, not quite.
>
>> > // Copyright 2003 © The Trustees of Indiana University.  All rights reserved.
>>                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> This part is incompatible with the Boost license requirements.
>
> Is it? I can't find anything in the Boost license guide. Is there
> an exact definition for the copyright somewhere?
>
> Looking at other licenses, e.g., the BSD template:
>
> http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
>
> Their license template starts:
>
> Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
>  All rights reserved.
>
> As far as I understand, "All rights reserved" is old lingo which may 
> be already implied by the "Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>" part of the
> copyright statement. Not a lawyer, so don't know for sure. 

The word from the lawyer (Devin Smith, Nixon Peabody LLP) is:

  I don't think it belongs in the copyright notice for anything
  (software, electronic documentation, etc.) that is being licensed.
  It belongs in books that are sold where, in fact, all rights (e.g.,
  to reproduce the book, etc.) are being reserved in the publisher or
  author.  I think it shouldn't be in the BSD license.

  The copyright notice for boost licenses should be Copyright (c)
  [year of first publication] [name of author].  It satisfies both US
  and foreign requirements.

  That being said, it's a very esoteric issue, largely because the
  notice itself isn't a requirement for copyright validity anymore, it
  just precludes someone from claiming innocent infringement.

So, my sense is that it should be removed, if only because it will
make automatic checking simpler.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com