Re: [boost] Is there interest in static code analysis?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is there interest in static code analysis?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-29 13:22:45

on Wed Feb 29 2012, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> 2012/2/29 Phil Endecott <spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden]>:
>> Anthony, did you search the mailing list archive for "coverity"? Â See e.g.
>> this thread:
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/185556/focus=185588
>> (and try to ignore the 75% of the posts that aren't helpful...)
>
> I was talking here about the exactly same tool. In thread that you
> supported no clear answer to shall we use it or not.
>
> There are some remarks about the license, but I`m not a lawyer and can
> tell nothing about the license. Only thing I know, is  that in some
> countries such licenses are void, exactly because of the "we can
> change the license at any time, without your permission" paragraph. I
> also see, that the Linux kernel uses that tool, and as I know a lot of
> lawyers cooperate with linux kernel project.
>
> Has someone contacts with good lawyers? Is license safe?

If we decide we want to use it, we have lawyers (through the Software
Conservancy) we can call on to help us evaluate the license.

IMO, if the Linux kernel can make good use of coverity and coverity can
handle C++, it would be a good idea for us to try it.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com