Re: [boost] Re: [license]

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-20 16:34:00

Thorsten Ottosen writes:
> | Not anymore.
> [snip]
> | Please see http://tinyurl.com/2qpgg.
> 
> So the default is
> 
> // Copyright 2004 Joe Coder. 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)

Yes.

> 
> Would this be appropiate too:
> 
> // Copyright 2004 Joe Coder. Distributed under the Boost
> // Software License, Version 1.0, provided this
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> // copyright notice appears in all copies. (See accompanying file
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
> 
> ?

The highlighted wording is redundant; the licence itself already requires
that. Citing the FAQ once more,

"Having fixed language for referring to the license helps corporate legal 
departments evaluate the boost distribution. Creativity in license 
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reference language is strongly discouraged, but judicious changes in the 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
use of whitespace are fine."

--
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering