Subject: Re: [boost] [provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-30 13:16:11
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:03:44PM -0500, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> Sorry for top posting, and even more sorry for being dense, but what are you
> trying to say? For me it's not clear from your mail what problems we as
> Boost developers could face (and why?) if the mentioning of Boost is not
> removed from the SFC website.
As far as I understand it, the TL;DR is:
* SFC provides legal, administration and other services for member
* Boost is apparently a member project of this SFC.
* SFC seems to have lost a lawsuit over use of the BusyBox project in
some kind of closed home entertainment device, lost due to some legal
* Thus, Boost should immediately stop being a SFC project for
some undisclosed reason of Alexander.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> > On Behalf Of Alexander Terekhov
> > Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 11:49 AM
> > To: boost_at_[hidden]
> > Subject: [boost] [provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boost
> > developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
> > http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/
> > (Current Member Projects)
> > "Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.
> > Boost emphasizes libraries that work well with the C++ Standard Library.
> > Boost libraries are intended to be widely useful, and usable across a
> > broad spectrum of applications. The Boost license encourages both
> > commercial and non-commercial use.
> > Boost aims to establish "existing practice" and provide reference
> > implementations so that Boost libraries are suitable for eventual
> > standardization. Ten Boost libraries are already included in the C++
> > Standards Committee's Library Technical Report ( TR1) as a step toward
> > becoming part of a future C++ Standard. More Boost libraries are proposed
> > for the upcoming TR2."
> > The context:
> > (pacer)
> > 03/23/2011 192 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin
> > from David Leichtman dated 3/23/2011 re: Requesting that the Reply and
> > Kuhn Declaration be stricken, or in the alternative, that the Court
> > consider Best Buy's responses to these new theories and arguments.
> > ENDORSEMENT: Defendant's request is granted. The Court will consider Best
> > Buy's response to the new issues raised in Plaintiffs' Reply, as set forth
> > in this letter. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A.
> > Scheindlin on 3/23/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
> > 04/14/2011 193 OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons in this opinion and
> > order, plaintiffs' motion to join WD is denied. The Clerk of the Court is
> > directed to close this motion (Docket No. 133). (Signed by Judge Shira A.
> > Scheindlin on 4/14/2011) (rjm) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
> > 04/26/2011 194 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin
> > from Emmett J. McMahon, dated 4/25/2011, re: Counsel for the defendant
> > Best Buy Co., writes to request a pre-motion conference regarding a motion
> > to strike Plaintiffs' claim for "actual damages and any additional profits
> > of [Best Buy] incurred as the result of infringement." ENDORSEMENT:
> > Request granted. A premotion conference will be held on May 6 at 2:30. So
> > Ordered. (Pre-Motion Conference set for
> > 5/6/2011 at 02:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin) (Signed by Judge
> > Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/25/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
> > (details)
> > http://www.terekhov.de/192.pdf
> > http://www.terekhov.de/194.pdf
> > Suggestion:
> > Please remove boost from http://sfconservancy.org/members
> > TIA.
> > regards,
> > alexander.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]