David B. Held writes:
Is this the canonical way to license a Boost library?
// Copyright 20xx. I. M. Author // Use, modification, and distribution are subject to the Boost Software // License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or // copy at www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
Not anymore.
If we don't want to include the actual license text in the library itself (nor does it seem desirable, when distributed with all of Boost), does it make more sense to abbreviate it to:
// Copyright 20xx. I. M. Author // Use, modification, and distribution are subject to the Boost Software // License, Version 1.0. (See www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
And did we agree that "use, modification, and distribution" is sufficient, or do we need to mention something about display rights?
Please see http://tinyurl.com/2qpgg. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering