From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-01 12:20:41
On 2020-09-01 14:50, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
> I sense it is unlikely that we would get a definitive legal opinion, even after paying money, for a
> license detail that is clearly ill-defined.
> Are there any reasons why Unicode would wish to complain to (or worse sue) Boost or its users?
> I can't conceive of any, especially when Unicode have not done so already to Boost when it has been
> in use for a decade.
> Have the most stringent reading of the requirements been imposed on any other user of Unicode?
> Not to my knowledge.
> Zach's work provides a defensible position and allows us to plausibly claim compliance.
> I feel we are worrying about a non-issue.
Licensing clarity is important for our downstream users. It doesn't
matter if Unicode will sue anyone or not.
If they are actually fine with the license not being distributed with
binaries, then let them confirm this in written form. If they don't
confirm then that would be seen as a violation, which we don't want to
have in Boost, regardless of the consequences.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk