[boost] Re: Three questions about the new license

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-10 11:27:42

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:46:53 -0500, David Abrahams
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>[...]
>>
>> IIUC, "the Software" (with a capital 's') includes documentation. Am I
>> right?
>
>Do you consider documentation to be software?  I don't.

No, I don't consider it software either :) I was asking if *in the
text of the license* they used the word "Software", with an uppercase
's', as a shortcut for software + docs. That's because it says:

   Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
   organization obtaining a copy of **the software and accompanying
   documentation** covered by this license (**the "Software"**)

>[...]
>> b) IIUC again, the comments we are inserting into source files
>>
>>
>> //  Use, modification and distribution are subject to the 
>> //  Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file 
>> //  LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
>>
>>
>> are unnecessarily verbose (and potentially dangerous). 
>
>Care to elaborate on why you think it's dangerous?

Potentially. I was just asking. My question was: the file says use,
modification and distribution are subject to the license. Taken
strictly I may interpret that only this three things are subject to
the license (not display, for instance). If, from a legal point of
view, "display" isn't one of these three things then I can display the
software without even reading the license.

Just like we do in software I would tend to avoid any repetition
between the license text and the source files comments, so that if the
lawyers decide to add some other form of usage in the license (imagine
if they forgot one! :)) we don't have to add it to the source files as
well. Unless it is guaranteed that "use, modification and
distribution" cover anything.

I know, I'm a bit paranoid ;)

>
>> One could simply say
>>
>> // Subject to the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See etc. etc.)
>
>I don't think a _file_ can be subject to a license, can it?  The file
>just exists.

Hmm... I don't know. It seems to me that the file is the *medium*
through which a piece of software is distributed.

> [...]

Thanks,
Genny.