Re: [Boost-users] Why is there so much co-dependency in Boost? Is there anything to be done about it?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Why is there so much co-dependency in Boost? Is there anything to be done about it?
From: Chris Cleeland (chris.cleeland_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-07 11:17:36

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 5 September 2012 22:05, steve_at_[hidden] <steve_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>  Here's an example of what we're worried about....
>>
>>
>>
>> Say we develop a tool for Disney to use on one of its feature length
>> films. A month before the premier date of the film, someone takes Disney to
>> court and claims that one of their production tools, the one we wrote,
>> contains code that was stolen from them.  Disney asks us to come to court
>> to defend our use of that code.
>>
> How are you vetting your compiler, OS, etc.?
>

Correct.  One might be tempted to say, "that's absurd", but given the level
of concern raised over using a toolkit that is clearly licensed and clearly
copyrighted, this seems a legitimate concern if one is using a compiler
such as gcc.  Or an OS like Linux.

For that matter, what's to prevent a similar doomsday scenario from
occurring if you were to purchase a license to use a 3rd party library, and
that 3rd party library is found to contain infringing code?  Where does
tort law stop?  It would seem that the infringement would be on the 3rd
party and not on good-faith users of the 3rd party code.

IANAL, but I would think that whatever would apply in the 3rd party
purchased software situation would similarly apply with boost--as long as
your usage model is the same, i.e., you treat it as a 3rd party product and
do not copy code from it.  Once you copy the code, YOU would potentially be
infringing.

Of course, the reality is that it may cost someone $$$$$ in legal bills to
find out that you are right and the complainer is wrong, and a settlement
would have been cheaper.

-- 
Chris Cleeland