From: Jonathan Brandmeyer (jbrandmeyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-11 11:49:19
On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 12:35, Rene Rivera wrote:
> Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote:
> > John Maddock's prodding with regard to copyright notices in Boost's
> > sources got me thinking about the copyright notices in its
> > documentation.
> > Currently, some docs have a copyright notice using the Boost Software
> > License, some have a permissive license other than the BSL, and some
> > just say "Copyright (c) DATE AUTHOR". I haven't done a detailed survey;
> > that observation is just based on a random browsing of the Boost docs.
> For a less random survey see:
> Boost Inspection Report
So it is on the radar. Excellent!
> > I generally believe in using the same copyright license for the
> > documentation as the one used for the software, at least in the context
> > of Free/Open Source Software. That may or may not be entirely
> > appropriate considering the BSL's particular language concerning
> > compiled software.
> As far a I understand the BSL, documentation is explicitly included in
> the "Software" (i.e. a library). So it follows that the same license is
> supposed to be applied to documentation.
Ah, yes. Hidden in plain sight.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk