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.
> certain that legally it can go anywhere in the file.
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk