Re: [Boost-users] Ownership of Boost IP?
-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users- bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gennaro Prota Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:13 PM To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Ownership of Boost IP?
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 19:39:17 -0400, "Nat Goodspeed" wrote:
My employer's legal department has just stated that we may not use Boost for product development because of a hypothetical lawsuit risk.
Devin Smith, the lawyer who wrote the Boost Software License, anticipated these issues; see "Benefit of Common Software License" in:
<http://www.boost.org/more/license_info.html>
where he also mentions a possible way to address the problem.
[Nat] I think you mean this passage? "But this can be addressed, not by trying to craft the perfect standard license, but by informing the corporations that they can, if they don't like the standard license, approach the authors to negotiate a different, perhaps even paid, license." Thank you, I hadn't previously found the cited discussion. But... If that's the best I can put forth, then I worry that our legal dept. will assert that tracking down individual library authors and negotiating with each of them will largely negate the savings in software development time. As the lawyers' position is "Don't use Boost," I can't see them making that effort, so it would be up to me (or other interested developers) to pursue it. Which leaves me/us vulnerable to charges of "wasting time" that could "better" be spent reinventing Boost technologies. I suppose the next round would involve my arguing that it would take me many months to implement even part of the functionality in question -- and the legal staff asking whether my boss should consider someone more competent instead. :-/ Any additional ammunition would be gratefully received...
Any additional ammunition would be gratefully received...
If lawyers didn't spend their time making life more complicated than it really is we wouldn't need lawyers. "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- Dick the Butcher in Henry VI, Shakespeare
Take your boss out for lunch. That'll do it. Sorry for the TP. Outlook webmail. -----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org on behalf of Nat Goodspeed Sent: Thu 8/3/2006 6:55 PM To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Ownership of Boost IP?
-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users- bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gennaro Prota Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:13 PM To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Ownership of Boost IP?
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 19:39:17 -0400, "Nat Goodspeed" wrote:
My employer's legal department has just stated that we may not use Boost for product development because of a hypothetical lawsuit risk.
Devin Smith, the lawyer who wrote the Boost Software License, anticipated these issues; see "Benefit of Common Software License" in:
<http://www.boost.org/more/license_info.html>
where he also mentions a possible way to address the problem.
[Nat] I think you mean this passage? "But this can be addressed, not by trying to craft the perfect standard license, but by informing the corporations that they can, if they don't like the standard license, approach the authors to negotiate a different, perhaps even paid, license." Thank you, I hadn't previously found the cited discussion. But... If that's the best I can put forth, then I worry that our legal dept. will assert that tracking down individual library authors and negotiating with each of them will largely negate the savings in software development time. As the lawyers' position is "Don't use Boost," I can't see them making that effort, so it would be up to me (or other interested developers) to pursue it. Which leaves me/us vulnerable to charges of "wasting time" that could "better" be spent reinventing Boost technologies. I suppose the next round would involve my arguing that it would take me many months to implement even part of the functionality in question -- and the legal staff asking whether my boss should consider someone more competent instead. :-/ Any additional ammunition would be gratefully received... _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Nat Goodspeed wrote:
I suppose the next round would involve my arguing that it would take me many months to implement even part of the functionality in question -- and the legal staff asking whether my boss should consider someone more competent instead. :-/
The answer to that would be to contact the Boost developers for all the libraries you intend to or might use, and ask them how long it took them to code up their respective libraries. Add it all up and present that figure to your boss, pointing out that these people were at least as competent as you or any other programmer he might care to employ. Does he *really* want to wait a year or two for the code you are writing for him? You might also want to ask your boss whether he is concerned that Microsoft (or whoever wrote your compiler) might sue for use of their version of C++, or whether he thinks Bjarne Stroustrup might be sending you a writ... Of course, that would just be ridiculous, wouldn't it? ;) Definitely take your boss out for lunch - somewhere where the wine is very good, and then put your arguments to him around about, oh, I don't know, when you're having coffee and liqueurs :) Paul
participants (4)
-
Michael Coles, MCDBA -
Nat Goodspeed -
Paul Giaccone -
Sohail Somani