Re: [boost] boost thread license and copyright

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
under BSL.

>>> 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.

Thank you!

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com