From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-07-27 13:22:34
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:05 AM Rene Rivera wrote:
> Not to discourage your effort but...
> Both of those changes, to the attribution and licensing, would almost
> certainly require Boost to get legal consult. As the current template, as
> describe in <https://www.boost.org/users/license.html
> <https://www.boost.org/users/license.html#FAQ>> was a product of the
> original creation of the Boost Software License.
> Although I'm all for making the attributions and licensing consistent :-)
Instead of inventing a new format now, if anything, why not make them
consistent with https://www.boost.org/users/license.html prescribes?
After all, many of our libraries are already consistent with it, and
as Rene (and the page) conveys, some effort when into deciding things
The page has the format "Copyright Joe Coder 2004 - 2006" and most
libraries have that, or "Copyright (C) Joe Coder 2004 - 2006". Both
are easy to parse without needing to introduce a colon after
In any case, some discussion needs to happen around what format we
want, the License page should be updated first, all before any pull
requests start being made.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk