From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-07 07:48:26
> | Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and
> | the doctrine of first sale.
> So what you are saying is that GPL/LGPL is unenforceable? So that all
> software that uses GPL has in fact no-license at all and that regular
> copyright law rules?
> Are you then saying that no-one is really allowed to use GPL software
> since they have not got permission to do so?
> You really seem to have some agenda, but it is not clear to me what it
>Maybe this is all a distraction. I think it may be a much bigger
>problem that the graph library's license, IIUC, seems to be
>incompatible with the Boost license requirements. Isn't anyone a
>little alarmed about that?
Yep, clause 3 of the graph-license does not appear to be Boost compatible.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk