30 Jul
2004
30 Jul
'04
7:14 p.m.
On Friday 30 July 2004 1:59 pm, Falk Hueffner wrote:
Moreover, I really don't think it fits the description
* Must be simple to read and understand.
if one is expected to additionally read and understand part of the US copyright law.
Why not just save a lot of misunderstandings and spell this out?
Because it would create more misunderstandings. It does not help to rewrite the text of the license to answer questions that are not legally ambiguous. The Boost license text was crafted _by lawyers_ with the purpose of communicating the legal status of Boost code. It does that. We have page that discusses the terms of the license without the legalese. Doug