Thorsten Ottosen writes:
| Not anymore. [snip] | Please see http://tinyurl.com/2qpgg.
So the default is
// Copyright 2004 Joe Coder. Distributed under the Boost // Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
Yes.
Would this be appropiate too:
// Copyright 2004 Joe Coder. Distributed under the Boost // Software License, Version 1.0, provided this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// copyright notice appears in all copies. (See accompanying file ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
?
The highlighted wording is redundant; the licence itself already requires that. Citing the FAQ once more, "Having fixed language for referring to the license helps corporate legal departments evaluate the boost distribution. Creativity in license ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ reference language is strongly discouraged, but judicious changes in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ use of whitespace are fine." -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering