On 08/05/2017 10:20 AM, Klemens Morgenstern via Boost wrote:
So for some reason I do not trust Microsoft. And I was wondering if the Boost license protects us from an idea behind a library we wrote. Otherwise this makes the Boost license not very useful. Protects us from? You mean protects the idea from being copied right? I don't think a license can do that whatsoever, since it is based on copyright not on a patent. A patent might be able to protect an idea, copyright can only protect the actually written words, i.e. the code itself not the concepts.
You mean it can only protect us from our code being copy & pasted around.
Also: have you reached out to Herb Sutter? I actually don't get your concern, do you want to be credited? His library is published under the MIT license, that's still open-source.
These days when I present root_ptr then I am being told: "Oh your library is like deferred_heap" when it should be the other way around. I also learned the hard way not to contact Microsoft in any way otherwise even my complaint will be plagiarized (sarcasm here). Everybody here knows root_ptr was once called block_ptr and shifted_ptr so my previous attempts came to life long before deferred_ptr. I just don't want to have Microsoft in the way anymore. Regards, -Phil