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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-18 11:02:21

"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

What I would like to ensure is that the number of files without
license or copyright is no greater than it was at the last release.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com