Re: [boost] Re: Re: google going open source

From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-18 16:04:35

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:03 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: google going open source

> "christopher diggins" <cdiggins_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:008c01c52be0$4ee8b770$d9958242_at_heronnest...
> |
> | Are you saying that BSD requires the copyright notice along with
> | executables?
>
>
> | "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> | copyright notice,
>
> That seems pretty clear to me; how else would you interpret the quote????
>
> -Thorsten

I thought I made my interpretation perfectly clear in the part of the email 
you snipped:

"It seems unreasonable to consider using and compiling a library in an
executable as a binary redistribution of a derived work of the library"

I consider a binary redistribution of a library (or derived work from a 
library) to be an object file, a .dll, or .zip file. An executable does not 
in any way resemble a source code library in form or function, which 
logically implies that it is not a "redistribution in binary form". Like I 
said, I am not a legal expert which is why I asked about legal precedent.

Throsten, I found your exagerrated overuse of question marks and the fact 
that you snipped the relevant portion of my email discourteous.

Christopher Diggins
Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL)
http://www.ootl.org