"John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
Some of the examples in bjam v2 are actually taken verbatim from the QT libraries examples, and currently have no copyright or license declaration on them at all.
Vladimir asks:
"Will
/* This file is part of Qt and is available under the Q Public License, available from http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/license.html */
be enough to make inspect tool happy. If we're really going to be extra-picky, I don't think I can add any "Copyright" string to the file I don't own."
Is adding such a string acceptable? Clearly we need to do something, but what?
Given the analysis at http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License... I think it would be _much_ better if we could replace these files with homegrown equivalent, or have the BBv2 tests download the files automatically. Anything we have in the boost tree whose license doesn't make it "free for any use" is going to be a barrier to adoption. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com