From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-19 17:36:29
"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:08:01 -0500, Rene Rivera wrote
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>> > "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> >>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.
>> With that in mind I just changed the tests I run, again ;-) Now in
>> addition to the "regular" syntax, and copyright checks page:
>> I added a different page for the license check:
>> That way at least we know what's missing if anyone wants to work on
>> improving the situation.
> Thanks that's nice. I've been thinking about this more. You will notice all
> the 'issues' in date-time amount to code in the examples subtree and
> documentation. I've been resisting cluttering example code with copyright and
> licensing stuff. But now I'm thinking that this can just be tagged onto the
> bottom. I suppose docs are pretty much the same.
Ah, no, I don't think so. I'm pretty sure license/copyright info
needs to go near the top of files. Uniformity is the name of the game
where making lawyers comfortable is concerned.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk