From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-10 16:38:42
Powell, Gary wrote
>#1 I'd prefer that any software I contribute to boost remain "free", as in
>I don't want someone to add 20 lines of code to a library and then sell it.
>You can sell the compiled machine code but not the original or the modified
>source other than to cover duplication and distribution costs.
Why not? Who cares?
>#2 I have worked for a overly restrictive employer who was paranoid that
>anything anyone might do on their own time might be owned by the employee
>and not the employee. It would be extremely helpful if the license states
>clearly that derivatives cannot be owned.
Again: why not? As long as the status of the original is unchanged why
should anyone care?
>I'm all for a company like "Boost Consulting", I think they add plenty of
>value to the boost community and give back way more than they take from the
>However greedy companies have been known to take free software, modify it
>and not return it to the public domain.
Again so what? If this is such a concern, don't contribute it - just sell
>There of course is no time limit and no way to prevent this from happening
>but it would be better if the copyright was a copy left.
Nothing wrong with copy left. Its different, but not necessarily better.
>Also all that bit about the liability disclaimers, forget it, you can be
>sued for anything, at anytime, not withstanding the claim about the
>liability, it might as well not be there for all the good it will do us. On
>the other hand it does give us a leg up in the event of a lawsuit, "We
>claimed it was worthless your honor."
With such little faith in the legal system, why are you even concerned
About the license at all?
>Also one should be able to write a book about boost, use part of the
>documentation without a heap of trouble. But a bound reprint of the
>documentation is owned by????
Hmmm - a good question.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk