Re: [boost] [mp_int] new release

Subject: Re: [boost] [mp_int] new release
From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-07 09:32:09

>-----Original Message-----
>From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Kevin Sopp
>Sent: 07 October 2008 12:45
>To: boost_at_[hidden]
>Subject: Re: [boost] [mp_int] new release
>
>Hi Paul,
>
>> This looks very useful but I note that
>>
>> http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#License
>>
>> 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

---
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone] & SMS, Mobile [phone] & SMS
pbristow_at_[hidden]