License reference text
Hi, just a quick note to remind you that the preferred text to refer to our license is not "Use, modification, and distribution are..." but // Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. // (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at // http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) The "distributed under" incipit avoids any mention of what actions are subject to license and what not, which is a specification belonging to the license itself. Bibliography ;-) - <http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/02/61200.php> -- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
Gennaro Prota wrote:
just a quick note to remind you that the preferred text to refer to our license is not "Use, modification, and distribution are..." but
// Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. // (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at // http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
[...] http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#Guidelines states that the preferred form is // Copyright Jane Programmer 2002. Use, modification, and distribution are // subject to the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying // file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) while http://www.boost.org/more/license_info.html says that one should use // Copyright 2004 Joe Coder. // Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See // accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at // http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) This should probably be fixed on the first page. Markus
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:46:00 +0200, Markus Schöpflin <markus.schoepflin@comsoft.de> wrote:
http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#Guidelines states that the preferred form is
[...]
while http://www.boost.org/more/license_info.html says that one should use
[...]
That shows an invariant law of information: two copies that are supposed to be in sync, won't be some time in the future. I'll be sure there's *one* copy of this in the whole boost documentation set. Thanks for reporting. -- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
Gennaro Prota wrote:
Hi,
just a quick note to remind you that the preferred text to refer to our license is not "Use, modification, and distribution are..." but
// Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
// Licensed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. Is shorter and more to the point. Distribution of copies "lawfully made" doesn't require a license. 17 USC 109. And, BTW, use and modification of lawfully owned software also doesn't require a license. 17 USC 117. regards, alexander. -- http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace-case-FAQ-for-dummies-v1.9.txt
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:45:57 +0200, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
// Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
// Licensed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
Is shorter
Gosh :-)
and more to the point.
Maybe. But I don't dare to express an opinion on that. I'm not a layer and I strictly adhere to the 'sutor non ultra crepidam' principle. If we talk about *pure opinions* (for what they are worth) I'd like "subject to" or "subject to the terms of". And I expressed a doubt about "distributed" in diebus illis (doesn't Latin sound great when talking about laws? :-)) <http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/02/61769.php> That said, I'll leave to law experts the final answer. What matters to me is that we don't have to hard-code that text everywhere, at least not in documentation files. Rene, could you confirm that this will be managed with server-side includes in the future? -- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:57:06 +0200, Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm not a layer
LaWyer :-)
[...]
If we talk about *pure opinions* (for what they are worth) I'd like "subject to" or "subject to the terms of".
I forgot "Released under", which also looks attractive. And BTW, I've never liked the fact that the local LICENSE_1_0.txt is just called with its name, while the online version is referred to as "copy", as if it were, so to speak, a second class version. I'd rather say: "See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt, or http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt" Pedantically, -- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
Gennaro Prota wrote: [...]
If we talk about *pure opinions* (for what they are worth) I'd like "subject to" or "subject to the terms of".
I forgot "Released under", which also looks attractive. And BTW, I've
Nah. Under unwritten GNU legal theory, one can take something released under "GPL compatible" (whatever that means) license and (re)license it under the GPL (in a "whole") even if that "GPL compatible" license says nothing about (re)licensing under the GPL akin to LGPL section 3. This, of course, works only in the GNU Republic, but I'd nevertheless refrain from using "Released under" wording. Oh, BTW, Nimmer on GPL legal schizophrenia, stunning double-speak, and etc. (quite entertaining and informative reading): http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/Open%20Source%20Legal%20Issues.pdf LEGAL ISSUES IN OPEN SOURCE AND FREE SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION1 RAYMOND T. NIMMER 1 This materials have been adapted from Chapter 11 in Raymond T. Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology (1997, 2005 Supp.). regards, alexander.
Gennaro Prota wrote:
Maybe. But I don't dare to express an opinion on that. I'm not a layer and I strictly adhere to the 'sutor non ultra crepidam' principle.
If we talk about *pure opinions* (for what they are worth) I'd like "subject to" or "subject to the terms of". And I expressed a doubt about "distributed" in diebus illis (doesn't Latin sound great when talking about laws? :-))
Yes, it does, if you want to intimidate a defendant or show off to the judge. Could you put those in English for those of us who didn't have the benefit of a classical education?
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:39:08 +0100, Paul Giaccone <paulg@cinesite.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, it does, if you want to intimidate a defendant or show off to the judge.
Sorry, it wasn't intended to "intimidate" anyone. Just my attempt at being humorous, partly backed up by thinking that Google could anyway clear up the actual meaning. In fact, the question itself was meant to be humorous (see below).
Could you put those in English for those of us who didn't have the benefit of a classical education?
Well, I don't have a classical education myself, anyhow "in diebus illis" just means "in those days" (you might enjoy looking up "busillis" in Wikipedia); in this context if wanted to sound as "in those famous days when the boost license was being discussed"; "sutor non ultra crepidam" (or "ne sutor ultra crepidam" and variations) means "cobbler, no further than the sandal" and is used to indicate not to express opinions outside one's own competence: legend has it that the Greek painter Apelles asked a cobbler's advice on how to depict a soldier sandal but the cobbler started advising on the whole painting. The original sentence was in Greek, of course. About the use of Latin as kind of obfuscation/intimidation, you might like this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnia_munda_mundis> Sometimes this same concept is expressed in Latin itself, as "quidquid Latine dictum sit altum viditur" ("whatever is said in Latin looks high") or "omnia dicta fortiora si dicta latina" ("all said things are stronger if said in Latin"). That was what I wanted to say, mocking myself. -- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
Thank you, that makes things a lot clearer, not just for me but for others too, I'm sure. The extra information is very illuminating. Sorry if I sounded stern - I should really have put a smiley or two somewhere in my post. Please cut these out and apply them where you wish: :-) ;-) Pace Gennarus, nunc lector ille gauisus est. (Translation: "Peace Gennaro, this reader is happy now.") (Pardon my dodgy Latin.) Paul Gennaro Prota wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:39:08 +0100, Paul Giaccone <paulg@cinesite.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, it does, if you want to intimidate a defendant or show off to the judge.
Sorry, it wasn't intended to "intimidate" anyone. Just my attempt at being humorous, partly backed up by thinking that Google could anyway clear up the actual meaning. In fact, the question itself was meant to be humorous (see below).
Could you put those in English for those of us who didn't have the benefit of a classical education?
Well, I don't have a classical education myself, anyhow "in diebus illis" just means "in those days" (you might enjoy looking up "busillis" in Wikipedia); in this context if wanted to sound as "in those famous days when the boost license was being discussed"; "sutor non ultra crepidam" (or "ne sutor ultra crepidam" and variations) means "cobbler, no further than the sandal" and is used to indicate not to express opinions outside one's own competence: legend has it that the Greek painter Apelles asked a cobbler's advice on how to depict a soldier sandal but the cobbler started advising on the whole painting. The original sentence was in Greek, of course.
About the use of Latin as kind of obfuscation/intimidation, you might like this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnia_munda_mundis>
Sometimes this same concept is expressed in Latin itself, as "quidquid Latine dictum sit altum viditur" ("whatever is said in Latin looks high") or "omnia dicta fortiora si dicta latina" ("all said things are stronger if said in Latin"). That was what I wanted to say, mocking myself.
participants (4)
-
Alexander Terekhov -
Gennaro Prota -
Markus Schöpflin -
Paul Giaccone