From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-08 18:32:19
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> It was precisely the posting of a question regarding this which
>> clarified the question in my own mind.
>> The existence of a standard in no way effects the "third party"
>> status of any particular implmentation.
> It does (from legal and support point of view) since there is a single
> supplier, the compiler vendor. If the vendor has been cleared for use
> (and you have to have a compiler cleared for a project), you get the
> standard library for free, but not Boost, you need a separate uphill
> battle for that. Or so I hear.
You may have heard right - I wouldn't know. It would sure be a
disappointing to find that huge efforts to define the interface of an ever
library are being expended just to meet the requirements imposed
by a group of lawyers who are not knowledgable about what's
really going on.
BTW - all the compiler vendors require customer's accept a disclaimer
that the their code and/or libraries have any errors and require
that one sign a waiver absolving them of any errors in their
code. I doubt that compiler vendors guarentee to pay you're
legal costs of something in the library turns out to have
been which violates a patent. I can't see whether or not something
is in the standard would effect the legal issues involved - as the
standard addresses interface - not implementation.
Some lawyers may believe that the fact something is or is
not in the standard may have some legal implications. But I
doubt that such beliefs have any real foundation. Of course
the fact that they believe may have real implications - but
its not a great rationale for such an undertaking.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk