From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-13 08:18:34
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Anthony Williams <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> thread (117)
>> I've added boostinspect:nolicense to most of these files, where they are
>> covered by an old license from William Kempf.
> Is that really a good idea? These should be flagged as not having the
> Boost license until we get them replaced. Isn't that the whole point
> of the report?
I understand things differently. I thought the point of the report was to flag
files that hadn't been thought about. Since these files aren't under the BSL,
and can't be made to be, the boostinspect::nolicense was added precisely to
address this issue, so files like these didn't clutter the report.
If that's not the intention, I can revert the changes.
>> The remaining files have no license and copyright info. I have not
>> touched these, as I am unclear as to what should happen.
>> Some of them have current boost contributors listed as the author in
>> the CVS log, but others were first created by William Kempf.
> If the only edits were made by people who are reachable, you can get
> their permission to change the license. Or, if they're already listed
> in more/blanket-permission.txt, you don't need to ask.
OK, I'll check those in more detail.
-- Anthony Williams Software Developer Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk