Subject: Re: [boost] [mp_int] new release
From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-07 09:32:09
>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Kevin Sopp
>Sent: 07 October 2008 12:45
>Subject: Re: [boost] [mp_int] new release
>> This looks very useful but I note that
>> and current Boost practice is that all the files include the
>Boost license text.
>> (This should include the .qbk as well - as a Quickbook
>comment. Tedious but you can paste).
>I know about that, and I think this license requirement wasn't written
>with a public domain library in mind. I believe it is also possible to
>add a noinspect comment in the file to silence the inspection script.
>> I don't see that your 'in the public domain' (rather
>ill-defined?) is any different from the Boost license text, so
>this is a mainly
>> cosmetic matter. For some or all the source code, you could
>also include Tom St. Denis in the copyright too?
>Public Domain specifically means that there is no copyright on the
>code. I could create a dual release with the Boost license for Boost
>and put up the public domain version somewhere else but that is not
>what I would like to do.
I can understand that two versions is a bad idea.
But I am puzzled at your reluctance to claim copyright (and hence to use the Boost licence which deliberately gives all the rights
of a public domain thing - and frees you of all responsibility too).
In many countries, if you have written it, you have copyright anyway.
What is your objection?
--- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS pbristow_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk