Re: [boost] Re: [license]

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-21 01:19:09

Glen Knowles writes:
> > > 
> > > 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,
> > 
> 
> My understanding was that it might be more then merely redundant, it could
> be interpreted as more restrictive. Possibly requiring the copyright notice
> to appear in compiled object code for example.

Which only emphasizes the points in http://tinyurl.com/2qpgg.

--
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering