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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-19 19:30:54

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

> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:36:29 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
>> > 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.
>
> Well, I hate to get ornery, but we aren't here to serve the lawyers.  

No, we're here to serve the C++ community.  Inasmuch as corporate
lawyers are uncomfortable with the format, it will inhibit programmers
from using Boost.

> I'm
> certain that legally it can go anywhere in the file.  

Me too.

> When the license/copyright is at the top it just interferes with the
> documentation.  Remember I'm not talking about source files in the
> library -- I'm talking about stuff in the example subtree that winds
> up in the documentation.  

Is there some reason the documentation needs to show the
license/copyright portion of the example files??

> And if the lawyers can't figure out how to use grep then too bad --
> maybe they could hire one of us poor programmers to write a program
> to help them sort it out...

Actually, that's what they're doing at several large companies.
Evaluating all of Boost is still an enormous task.  I think we should
make it as painless as possible.

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