From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-18 16:04:35
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_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
> | 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????
I thought I made my interpretation perfectly clear in the part of the email
"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.
Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk