"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 20:51:05 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
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.
I don't disagree with improving things, but we need an organized effort to modify that many files that isn't right before the release. For example, Date-time has be bunch of documentation files that don't have license info directly embedded. However, I don't think there can be any confusion since the license is linked from the first page of the docs and is in every source file. I don't feel that adding a license reference in every doc file is a valueable use of my time right now.
So, let me clarify that I was thinking of these auxilary files like Jamfiles and documentation files that I consider less important. I think that all source files need a copyright and license reference.
What I would like to ensure is that the number of files without license or copyright is no greater than it was at the last release. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com