Re: [boost] Re: [regression] New Inspection Report [threads] Compilation problems on CW and others...

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-18 09:52:30

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 20:51:05 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> > So if we wanted to filter down the report I suggest we throw out all the
> > licensing issues...
> 
> I respectfully disagree.  Improving our licensing consistency is an
> important goal for Boost, and leaving off licenses/copyrights is a
> real barrier to adoption.  Let's not allow it to get worse, at least.

I don't disagree with improving things, but we need an organized effort to
modify that many files that isn't right before the release.  For example,
Date-time has be bunch of documentation files that don't have license info
directly embedded. However, I don't think there can be any confusion since the
license is linked from the first page of the docs and is in every source file.
 I don't feel that adding a license reference in every doc file is a valueable
use of my time right now.

So, let me clarify that I was thinking of these auxilary files like Jamfiles
and documentation files that I consider less important.  I think that all
source files need a copyright and license reference.

Jeff