----- Original Message ----- From: "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:03 PM Subject: [boost] Re: Re: google going open source
"christopher diggins" <cdiggins@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:008c01c52be0$4ee8b770$d9958242@heronnest... | | Are you saying that BSD requires the copyright notice along with | executables?
| "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above | copyright notice,
That seems pretty clear to me; how else would you interpret the quote????
-Thorsten
I thought I made my interpretation perfectly clear in the part of the email you snipped: "It seems unreasonable to consider using and compiling a library in an executable as a binary redistribution of a derived work of the library" I consider a binary redistribution of a library (or derived work from a library) to be an object file, a .dll, or .zip file. An executable does not in any way resemble a source code library in form or function, which logically implies that it is not a "redistribution in binary form". Like I said, I am not a legal expert which is why I asked about legal precedent. Throsten, I found your exagerrated overuse of question marks and the fact that you snipped the relevant portion of my email discourteous. Christopher Diggins Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL) http://www.ootl.org