Subject: Re: [boost] Coverity Static Code Analysis
From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-04 11:22:43
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Michael Fawcett wrote:
>> I'm not familiar with Coverity at all.
> First time I hear of it, too :-) From a quick (as in
> "uninterested") glance at their site, they seem yet another
> "provider of nothing" trying to make a name for itself (and go
> from there to make money).
So I ended up reading up on them and browsing their site for a while.
It seems that they are funded by the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and lots of big name open source projects use their services.
If you take a look at the Rung 1 ladder, projects such as Apache,
Blender, emacs, Firefox, FreeBSD, gcc, GDB, glibc, Gnome, KDE, Linux
2.6, Mono, Wine, and wxWidgets are listed.
Surely they read the license agreement first and found no problem with it?
I admit, when I read it, it sounds scary, but IANAL. Frankly, anytime
I read any license agreement it sounds scary to me. So I went ahead
and read Google's Terms of Service, and they have a line that sounds
exactly the same.
19. Changes to the Terms
19.1 Google may make changes to the Universal Terms or Additional
Terms from time to time. When these changes are made, Google will make
a new copy of the Universal Terms available at
http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en and any new Additional Terms
will be made available to you from within, or through, the affected
19.2 You understand and agree that if you use the Services after
the date on which the Universal Terms or Additional Terms have
changed, Google will treat your use as acceptance of the updated
Universal Terms or Additional Terms.
So you see, most of us accept that language in an agreement every day,
we just might not know it ;)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk