David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Anthony Williams <anthony_w.geo@yahoo.com> writes:
Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> writes:
thread (117)
I've added boostinspect:nolicense to most of these files, where they are covered by an old license from William Kempf.
Is that really a good idea? These should be flagged as not having the Boost license until we get them replaced. Isn't that the whole point of the report?
I understand things differently. I thought the point of the report was to flag files that hadn't been thought about. Since these files aren't under the BSL, and can't be made to be, the boostinspect::nolicense was added precisely to address this issue, so files like these didn't clutter the report. If that's not the intention, I can revert the changes.
The remaining files have no license and copyright info. I have not touched these, as I am unclear as to what should happen.
Some of them have current boost contributors listed as the author in the CVS log, but others were first created by William Kempf.
If the only edits were made by people who are reachable, you can get their permission to change the license. Or, if they're already listed in more/blanket-permission.txt, you don't need to ask.
OK, I'll check those in more detail. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Software Developer Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk