Formal Review of Boost.Polygon is halfway through and no actual reviews so far
Dear Developers, The formal review of the Boost.Polygon is halfway through and, while there was some useful discussion, there are still no "actual" reviews (where you clearly vote for inclusion and rejection). If you are interested in a geometric oriented library please try to make the time to post a formal review by the end of September 2 :) Best regards Fernando Cacciola Review Manager
I've added a polygon.tar.gz archive of the sandbox version of gtl including docs and source code. http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/gtl/polygon.tar.gz This way you don't have to go through a subversion client to get the code. To compile against the code untar it into a directory, add that directory to your include path and use one of the example codes from the docs for your main() function. You will need boost in your include path as well. Header files of interest: point_data.hpp point_traits.hpp point_concept.hpp (relate to point usage and custom point examples.) polygon_traits.hpp (relates to polygon usage and custom polygon examples.) polygon_set_data.hpp polygon_set_traits.hpp polygon_set_concept.hpp (relates to polygon set usage and custom polygon set examples.) detail/polygon_set_view.hpp (how the operator templates work) Thanks, Luke
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Cacciola Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 6:27 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] Formal Review of Boost.Polygon is halfway through and no actual reviews so far
The formal review of the Boost.Polygon is halfway through and, while there was some useful discussion, there are still no "actual" reviews (where you clearly vote for inclusion and rejection).
A trivial question - is there a reason why the copyright is *only* with Intel. I would have expected the authors to *also* claim copyright. Is this deliberate? (This would also make clear who the authors are - for each and every file). Paul PS For what nano-amount it is worth, you can could my previous reply as a YES, especially in view of the amount of real-life use reported by Lucanus. --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
A trivial question - is there a reason why the copyright is *only* with Intel.
I would have expected the authors to *also* claim copyright.
Is this deliberate?
Yes. Intel owns any code I write for them. I have no legal standing to assert a personal copyright on the code, which is why I don't put my name in the banner. I suppose that eventually the banners of individual files may need to be ammended to include authors of community contributions. We want people to contribute, the banner is just a legal requirement for licensing the code. I had to negotiate with the lawyers about how to word the banner and it was remarkably hard to make them happy considering how little the thing says.
(This would also make clear who the authors are - for each and every file).
As it is currently I am the sole author of every file, so that should be clear enough. Thanks, Luke
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Simonson, Lucanus J Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 6:54 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review of Boost.Polygon is halfway through and no actual reviews so far
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
A trivial question - is there a reason why the copyright is *only* with Intel.
I would have expected the authors to *also* claim copyright.
Is this deliberate?
Yes. Intel owns any code I write for them. I have no legal standing to assert a personal copyright on the code, which is why I don't put my name in the banner. I suppose that eventually the banners of individual files may need to be ammended to include authors of community contributions. We want people to contribute, the banner is just a legal requirement for licensing the code. I had to negotiate with the lawyers about how to word the banner and it was remarkably hard to make them happy considering how little the thing says.
(This would also make clear who the authors are - for each and every file).
As it is currently I am the sole author of every file, so that should be clear enough.
Well the files don't even have you name in it which seems a bit mean! But then I will never understand the working of the minds of lawyers. Once they have agreed to the Boost license, they have agreed to others adding their names to the copyright list. Any one - except you? However you've obviously wasted enough time arguing with them already, so I'd leave it for now. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Paul A. Bristow Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 7:16 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review of Boost.Polygon is halfway through and no actual reviews so far
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Simonson, Lucanus J Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 6:54 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review of Boost.Polygon is halfway through and no actual reviews so far
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
A trivial question - is there a reason why the copyright is *only* with Intel.
I would have expected the authors to *also* claim copyright.
Yes. Intel owns any code I write for them. I have no legal standing to assert a personal copyright on the code, which is why I don't put my name in the banner
Well the files don't even have you name in it which seems a bit mean!
I've belatedly realised that there is a simple solution to this. Add Doxygen comment as a header to all the files - this would be useful anyway for anyone (hopefully including you when the documentation is redone using the Quickbook tool chain) to use doxygen to index the code. And comments that give some clues to the contents of the file are very helpful to those reading the source. For example /*! \file polygon.hpp \brief Boost.polygon2d4590 \details header file that just includes all other required headers. \author Simonson, Lucanus J \date Sep 2009 */ HTH Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
Hi Luke,
As it is currently I am the sole author of every file, so that should be clear enough.
Clear enough for those of us who are watching, but 5 years from now people will wind up using Boost.Polygon without ever relating it to you. So, I strongly recommend that you find a legal way to put your name in the code *and* the documentation, alongside Intel of course. FWIW, what I've always seen is: the copyright holder being the sponsoring or employing company, but the "author" being the person who was sponsored or employed. Something like: Copyright (C) 2009, Intel Corp. Author: Lucanus Simonson (<your email here>) IANAL but that makes legal sense because an "author" isn't implicitely bound to any sort of right, so they all go to Intel as they require. This is in the very spirit of open source where your name in the material is your most dirtect, often only, retribution. Best -- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting, Founder http://www.scisoft-consulting.com
2009/8/29 Fernando Cacciola <fernando.cacciola@gmail.com>:
Hi Luke,
As it is currently I am the sole author of every file, so that should be clear enough.
Clear enough for those of us who are watching, but 5 years from now people will wind up using Boost.Polygon without ever relating it to you. So, I strongly recommend that you find a legal way to put your name in the code *and* the documentation, alongside Intel of course.
His name would be in the maintainers list and 'svn annotate' so developers should be able to tell who wrote it and who's responsible for it. Users' questions should be addressed to the list, not to individuals. So there's no reason to require his name in the source. I'd suggest it's actually a problem that most libraries are reliant on a single developer. Daniel
participants (4)
-
Daniel James -
Fernando Cacciola -
Paul A. Bristow -
Simonson, Lucanus J