[boost] Re: Three questions about the new license

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.
>
> Yes.
>
>> > (....)
>> >> > 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.
>
> Yep.

Thanks again for all your help, Diane!

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