From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-13 09:47:59
Anthony Williams <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
I guess I don't know which intention we want to pursue. I know that
our users would like to know about any Boost source files that aren't
>>> 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.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com