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

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-19 20:49:01

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:30:54 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > 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??

The files from the examples directory get automatically processed into the
documentation -- so unless we add another step to automatically strip the
license / copyright it shows up in the docs.  Sure, it can be added, but it's
more time spent off-task...
 
> > 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.

Sure -- I've worked with plenty of them and promoted Boost everywhere.  Of
course, licensing has to be approved.  Some companies have an efficient
evaluation process and some don't.  If they have an inefficient process then
they spend lots of money figuring out that it is ok to use Boost -- some can't
ever decide that it's ok.  From what I've seen this is mostly a problem with
the companies themselves and not a problem with the structure of Boost...

> Evaluating all of Boost is still an enormous task.  
> I think we should make it as painless as possible.

Don't disagree, but there needs to be limits on the amount of time we spend on
it.  To me, if some big company really insists on getting every single file in
boost 100% consistent then they should pay someone to get it consistent --
perhaps you ;-) 

    
Jeff