From: Momchil Velikov (velco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-31 14:48:16
The discussion is drifting away somewhat ...
So, the claim is that there's no need of explicit permission (in the
Boost License) to make copies and copies of derived work
(=distribute), because this right is granted by the USC.
As a side note proprietary licenses do not allow distribution by
explicitly forbidding it and are without doubt enforceable by virtue
of being contracts.
As another side note ditribution terms of GPL is not enforceable (in
some cases) because one can legally obtain copies of GPL'ed software
without being bound by the GPL and thus USC provisions apply.
Are these yours and Boost lawers claims or have I misunderstood
And as another side note, when one is capable of downloading some
software, does that mean that the software is in the public domain,
just because one has no idea whether it has or has no rights to
download it ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk