Re: boost vs. The Lawyers (non-technical)

From: Brian (bneal_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-16 07:41:24

--- In Boost-Users_at_y..., "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_c...> wrote:
> > Thanks for the input so far. I too would like to call for some 
blanket
> > license that all boost developers agree to (if possible). It 
looks like I'll
> > be contacting developers individually and trying to get them to 
sign
> > something for us. Not fun for either side I guess.
> 
> This didn't go into 1.29, but I went ahead and put a license page
> in the documents for the date_time library that so that you 
> hopefully that would serve as a single point of reference instead
> of having to go to each source file.  So I'll be interested to
> know if your lawyers will accept that approach.  If they do, 
> then we might be able to....
> 
> Have a summary table for all of boost:
>  
> bind         boost standard license
> date_time    boost standard license
> foobar_lib   see http://libs/....
> ....
> 
> Oh, and where possible authors could adopt the boost standard
> license, if we had such a thing.  Seems like there has
> been some previous discussion of this.  I'm guessing that
> a big percentage of the libraries would adopt it b/c for
> all practical purposes the licensing isn't that much 
> different.  But someone has to draft it, post it to the
> developer group and get the ball rolling.  
> 
> Brian you seem like the logical 'draftee' since you are 
> already having to sort thru this mess :^)
> 
> Jeff

Well I was hoping to make a more technical contribution to boost some 
day, but this will have to do for now... :) 

We are in the process of figuring out what our lawyers want. I will 
pass along anything I learn as soon as I find out.

Thanks,

Brian