From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-17 11:03:24
"Diane Cabell" <dcabell_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Thanks, that seems less prone to misinterpretation to me also. Would
>> // Copyright David Abrahams 2004. Distributed under 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)
>> do just as well? It's just just a little less wordy -- "made
>> available subject ot the terms of" sticks in my craw a bit.
>> > (....)
>> >> > David Abrahams wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> Ugh I don't think we ever considered that "display" would be
>> >> interpreted other than to mean "display publicly". Does that mean
>> >> that in the license:
>> >> 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") to use,
>> >> reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the
>> >> Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software, and to
>> >> permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so,
>> >> all subject to the following:
>> >> "display" ought to be "display publicly"?
>> > Yes. But again, private display doesn't require permission, so a
>> > court would likely interpret this to language to mean "public
>> > display." If it went to court, you'd get to testify as to that
>> > intention.
>> So IIUC, changing the license wording isn't critical. We should
>> probably wait 'till a critical issue comes up before making any
>> non-critical changes.
Thanks again for all your help, Diane!
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk