-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Sopp Sent: 07 October 2008 12:45 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [mp_int] new release
Hi Paul,
This looks very useful but I note that
http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#License
and current Boost practice is that all the files include the Boost license text. (This should include the .qbk as well - as a Quickbook comment. Tedious but you can paste).
I know about that, and I think this license requirement wasn't written with a public domain library in mind. I believe it is also possible to add a noinspect comment in the file to silence the inspection script.
I don't see that your 'in the public domain' (rather ill-defined?) is any different from the Boost license text, so this is a mainly cosmetic matter. For some or all the source code, you could also include Tom St. Denis in the copyright too?
Public Domain specifically means that there is no copyright on the code. I could create a dual release with the Boost license for Boost and put up the public domain version somewhere else but that is not what I would like to do.
I can understand that two versions is a bad idea. But I am puzzled at your reluctance to claim copyright (and hence to use the Boost licence which deliberately gives all the rights of a public domain thing - and frees you of all responsibility too). In many countries, if you have written it, you have copyright anyway. What is your objection? Paul --- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS pbristow@hetp.u-net.com