Re: [boost] Boost inspection notification (2006-07-16/RC_1_34_0)

From: Martin Bonner (martin.bonner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-18 08:58:54

----Original Message----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Gennaro Prota Sent:
18 July 2006 13:47 To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Boost inspection notification
(2006-07-16/RC_1_34_0) 

> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:39:42 +0100, Anthony Williams
> <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>>> boostinspect:notbooststandardlicense ?
>> 
>> Looks good to me, though it might look better with underscores, as
>> per the usual boost naming: 
>> 
>>    boostinspect:not_boost_standard_license
> 
> I don't care that much (my only preference is for the tag to appear at
> the bottom of the file), but the 's' in "BSL" stands for "software",
> not "standard". Just let me know what your choice is, so that I can
> make the tool aware of it :)

- I agree it should not say "nolicense" that is too confusing for the
naive user.
- It probably shouldn't say "not_boost_license" because the license must
meet the boost license requirements
(http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#License).
- boostinspect:not_boost_software_license is probably best.

Why do you think the tag should be at the end.  Surely next to the
actual license would be best?

-- 
Martin Bonner
Martin.Bonner_at_[hidden]
Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ,
ENGLAND Tel: [phone]