Re: [boost] boost thread license and copyright

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: [phone]