"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:08:01 -0500, Rene Rivera wrote
David Abrahams wrote:
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
So if we wanted to filter down the report I suggest we throw out all the licensing issues...
I respectfully disagree. Improving our licensing consistency is an important goal for Boost, and leaving off licenses/copyrights is a real barrier to adoption. Let's not allow it to get worse, at least.
With that in mind I just changed the tests I run, again ;-) Now in addition to the "regular" syntax, and copyright checks page:
http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/inspection_report.html
I added a different page for the license check:
http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/license_report.html
That way at least we know what's missing if anyone wants to work on improving the situation.
Thanks that's nice. I've been thinking about this more. You will notice all the 'issues' in date-time amount to code in the examples subtree and documentation. I've been resisting cluttering example code with copyright and licensing stuff. But now I'm thinking that this can just be tagged onto the bottom. I suppose docs are pretty much the same.
Ah, no, I don't think so. I'm pretty sure license/copyright info needs to go near the top of files. Uniformity is the name of the game where making lawyers comfortable is concerned. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com