From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-30 14:14:00
On Friday 30 July 2004 1:59 pm, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Moreover, I really don't think it fits the description
> * Must be simple to read and understand.
> if one is expected to additionally read and understand part of the US
> copyright law.
> Why not just save a lot of misunderstandings and spell this out?
Because it would create more misunderstandings. It does not help to rewrite
the text of the license to answer questions that are not legally ambiguous.
The Boost license text was crafted _by lawyers_ with the purpose of
communicating the legal status of Boost code. It does that. We have page that
discusses the terms of the license without the legalese.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk