[boost] Re: [regression] New Inspection Report -- License checks...

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:
>> 
>> http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/inspection_report.html
>> 
>> I added a different page for the license check:
>> 
>> http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/license_report.html
>> 
>> 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