On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 12:35, Rene Rivera wrote:
Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote:
John Maddock's prodding with regard to copyright notices in Boost's sources got me thinking about the copyright notices in its documentation.
Currently, some docs have a copyright notice using the Boost Software License, some have a permissive license other than the BSL, and some just say "Copyright (c) DATE AUTHOR". I haven't done a detailed survey; that observation is just based on a random browsing of the Boost docs.
For a less random survey see:
http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/license_report.html Boost Inspection Report
So it is on the radar. Excellent!
I generally believe in using the same copyright license for the documentation as the one used for the software, at least in the context of Free/Open Source Software. That may or may not be entirely appropriate considering the BSL's particular language concerning compiled software.
As far a I understand the BSL, documentation is explicitly included in the "Software" (i.e. a library). So it follows that the same license is supposed to be applied to documentation.
Ah, yes. Hidden in plain sight. Thanks, -Jonathan