From: Martin Bonner (martin.bonner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-13 10:16:13
David Abrahams wrote:
> Anthony Williams <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 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.
Do we need two reports? One (posted regularly to the list, and nagged
about) which reports files which have neither a boost license nor
boostinspect::nolicense; the other which also includes those files which
have boostinspect::nolicense (and hence can be assumed to be under a
non-boost license). The latter report would be useful to users cautious
about license issues; the former would be useful to developers who need
to clean things up.
If not, what is the point of boostinspect::nolicense?
-- Martin Bonner Martin.Bonner_at_[hidden] Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ, ENGLAND Tel: +44 (0)1223 203894
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk