From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-30 07:46:12
"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Some of the examples in bjam v2 are actually taken verbatim from the
> QT libraries examples, and currently have no copyright or license
> declaration on them at all.
> Vladimir asks:
> /* This file is part of Qt and is available under the Q Public License,
> available from http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/license.html
> be enough to make inspect tool happy. If we're really going to be
> I don't think I can add any "Copyright" string to the file I don't own."
> Is adding such a string acceptable? Clearly we need to do something,
> but what?
Given the analysis at
I think it would be _much_ better if we could replace these files with
homegrown equivalent, or have the BBv2 tests download the files
automatically. Anything we have in the boost tree whose license
doesn't make it "free for any use" is going to be a barrier to
-- 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