From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-29 16:35:46
At 03:41 PM 12/29/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> All of that is perhaps interesting, but it is really off-topic for
>> So this discussion should move to comp.lang.c++.moderated, or
>> perhaps some forum dealing with copyright law.
>So basically, you don't think there's any merit to the claims?
>You don't suppose a nightmare scenario in which the actual
>language itself turns out to be owned by SCO, and all "derivative
>works", like Boost, also turn out to be owned by SCO is remotely
Before an ISO Standard is approved, there is a stage where those with
proprietary interests must declare those interests publicly or lose the
ability to extract royalties, etc. One or two did for C++, but only for
very minor aspects like a particular way to construct v-tables. There was
recently a case recently where someone hid a patent interest until after
standardization of some hardware, then tried to collect royalties. IIRC,
they not only couldn't collect royalties, but were found to have committed
some form of fraud.
But I'm not a lawyer, and neither are most other Boost participants. So it
is really a waste of time for us to speculate about "what if" scenarios.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk