New Boost website ready for launch
Hi everyone, As most of you know, the new Boost website has been in the works for quite a long time: last week we've fixed the last showstopper issues and are now in a position to launch it publicly and announce to the wider community! See the launch-ready website at: https://boost.io The new website is ready to replace the current one at boost.org any time we want. The old site has served us well for 25 years, and it deserves to be given a retirement permit. OVERVIEW The new website is organized in five top-level sections: * News: an aggregator of internal announcements, blog articles, videos, etc. related to the Boost project. * Learn: comprehensive and completely rewritten tutorials and reference material for users, contributors and review participants. Check this out: there's a ton of new stuff here. * Community: links to the various discussion venues for Boost (mailing lists, Slack groups, X, etc.). * Libraries: revamped directory of Boost libraries, with integrated access to version-specific docs, repos, and more. * Releases: access to release notes, download binaries and source code for all Boost versions from 1.16.1 up to the current one. Users can navigate the website anonymously or log in to be able to contribute to the News section, receive notifications etc. The site uses responsive design to work on wide screens as well as your mobile device. Also, check the light and dark modes at the top-right corner :-) FEEDBACK AND FUTURE The evolution of the website does not stop here. We have quite a backlog of issues and new features registered at: https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs/issues But we're also expecting your feedback! Please let us know what you think of the website and ways to improve it. I will personally make sure that all comments and suggestions are properly addressed. Ways to contribute: * Through the mailing list or the #boost-website group at cpplang.slack.com. * Filing issues directly at https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2 (website proper) and https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2 (learning material). * Learning material has an "Edit this page" link from where you can fork any documentation section and propose changes through a pull request. * Reach out to me anyway you'd like. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are just too many individuals to list here who had contributed to the new website --my thanks to all of them. Let me mention some of the people I have worked with the most in the last two months, when I took over the PM role for this launch effort. * The people at REVSYS (Frank Wiles, Lacey Henschel) and Spencer Strickland built the Django-based backend and most of the frontend. Kenneth Reitz and Julio C. Estrada have been working tirelessly to close functionality gaps and fix remaining issues up to launch status. * Peter Turcan is the main author of the new learning material featured in the website. Again, check it out and help us spot glitches or propose new topics to work on. * Sam Darwin, who's already the Atlas upon whom the current Boost infrastructure rests, has double down on his responsibilites to set up and take care of this new backend. * René Rivera wrote many of the scripts that power the old website and has assisted us in the migration process with his expertise and unique insights into the particulars of Boost internal procedures. * Many people have filed issues during development, but the record holder is Andrey Semashev (39 tickets and counting). His suggestions and active involvement in the fixing process have made the website a better place. Best, Joaquín M López Muñoz
El 17/06/2024 a las 18:29, Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost escribió:
Hi everyone,
As most of you know, the new Boost website has been in the works for quite a long time: last week we've fixed the last showstopper issues and are now in a position to launch it publicly and announce to the wider community! See the launch-ready website at:
The new website is ready to replace the current one at boost.org any time we want. The old site has served us well for 25 years, and it deserves to be given a retirement permit.
Awesome! Thanks to everyone that contributed! As mentioned in the post that David did in April (https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/04/256602.php) the new website decision was not easy but I hope it will serve the community well. I'm really glad the community and the foundation found the way forward. Apart from continuing the never ending work fixing bugs and adding new features, we should schedule the replacement of the old website in an ordered manner. Maybe this new website can make some noise in social media and renew C++ programmers' interest in Boost. Best, Ion
El 17/06/2024 a las 19:25, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost escribió:
Apart from continuing the never ending work fixing bugs and adding new features, we should schedule the replacement of the old website in an ordered manner. Maybe this new website can make some noise in social media and renew C++ programmers' interest in Boost.
Hi! Do we have an update on when the new site will go live officially? Once the DNS update is done in 24-48h the change will be properly propagated. Best, Ion
See the launch-ready website at: https://boost.io
The privacy policy now seems OK to me. I'm not thrilled by the "encourage you to review this privacy notice frequently" part. Do you really expect me to check the privacy policy page every time I want to look up something in the Boost docs? No. I continue to find the "terms of use" page problematic. If you want to have a "legally binding agreement" between you and casual site visitors, then at the very least that needs to be a full-screen popup that everyone has to see and click "agree" on before they can view the site. Content in a link at the bottom of the page that the user hasn't clicked on cannot possibly establish a contract. You say that "this website ... provided under the terms of the Boost Software License". Is that in addition to these terms of use? I.e. if I disagree with the terms of use, can I choose to use it under the terms of the BSL instead? If that's not what you mean - then what does that bit mean?
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THESE LEGAL TERMS, THEN YOU ARE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED FROM USING THE SERVICES AND YOU MUST DISCONTINUE USE IMMEDIATELY.
Noted. Regards, Phil.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 6:23 AM Phil Endecott via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The privacy policy now seems OK to me. ... I continue to find the "terms of use" page problematic.
It looks like the privacy policy was updated but not the terms of use. Most of the work in getting the website ready for launch was focused on the actual site operation and presentation and not the legal mumbo-jumbo, apologies for that. If you could please open an issue then the team can make sure your needs are addressed ( https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues). And I appreciate that you check out the site! Thanks
El 18/06/2024 a las 15:23, Phil Endecott via Boost escribió:
[...]
I continue to find the "terms of use" page problematic. If you want to have a "legally binding agreement" between you and casual site visitors, then at the very least that needs to be a full-screen popup that everyone has to see and click "agree" on before they can view the site. Content in a link at the bottom of the page that the user hasn't clicked on cannot possibly establish a contract.
You say that "this website ... provided under the terms of the Boost Software License". Is that in addition to these terms of use? I.e. if I disagree with the terms of use, can I choose to use it under the terms of the BSL instead? If that's not what you mean - then what does that bit mean?
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THESE LEGAL TERMS, THEN YOU ARE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED FROM USING THE SERVICES AND YOU MUST DISCONTINUE USE IMMEDIATELY.
Noted.
Hi Phil, thanks for your feedback, this is a discussion of the points you raised: Legally binding agreement As a matter of fact, using a service implies abiding by its terms of use via the so-called "implicit consent" provision. Let me give you an example that is similar in some respects to ours: wikipedia.org. There are three types of users there: * Read-only users (the majority): these can access the site without explicitily accepting the terms of use, yet these terms exist: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use * Non-registered contributing users: one can for instance initiate a talk on some article without registering. Right at the bottom of the "Add topic" button there is some legalese explaining that clicking that button implies accepting the terms of use. * Registered users: these provide an (optional) email address, go through the usual validation mail etc. Curiously enough, explicit acceptance of the terms of use is not required anywhere in the process. Now, in the (proposed) new Boost website we have two types of users: * Non-registered users: these are expected to be the majority, at least initially. Non-registered users have effectively read-only access to the site, so the terms for them are extremely lenient in that they focus on scenarios beyond their interaction capabilities. In this case, we have opted for doing as Wikipedia (and others) do, and provide the terms of use without requiring explicit consent. * Registered users: these can interact with the site by providing personal information in their profile section and proposing entries to the news section (in the future, their interaction capabilities will expand). Currently they are not requested to accept the terms of use as part of their registation, but I filed a ticket so that this is fixed. ----- "If you do not agree with all of these legal terms, you are expressely prohibited..." For its own protection and that of other users, any service provider must be able to deny (or at least prohibit) access to malicious users (like, for instance, those posting illegal content), so, yes, this must be present. Again, non-registered users can hardly break the terms of use because they can only read information. Anyway, the message is a bit hostile and I've toned it down a bit following the example of usingstdcpp.org (see below). ----- Terms of use and licensing terms These are separate topics. There are different components to be discussed here: * The site itself, i.e. a web server and associated infrastructure run by the service provider. * The information displayed by the site: * Text and images on the site itself (BSL licensed, repo boostorg/website-v2). * Documents on the "Learn" section (BSL licensed, repo boostorg/website-v2-docs). * Documentation from Boost libraries (BSL licensed, each on its own repo). * Links to Boost source code (BSL licensed, each on its own repo). * Links to external sites * Content contributed by users (e.g. news entries). These are hosted on the site backend. * The source code of the site (BSL licensed, repo boostorg/website-v2). Now, the terms of use refer to what users are allowed to do when interacting with the site. All the content they access (trough the site or some other way) is subject to its corresponding license that governs what users can do with it (copying, distributing, modifying, etc.) So, fo instance, a user can enter the site (and implicitly accept the terms of use), download some docs (which are BSL), stop using the service (thus not being bound by the terms of use any longer) and use the downloaded content as they please (subject to the corresponding license). I hope this clarifies the situation. There's a category of information without an explicitly assigned license, namely "Content contributed by users". For this we are requiring (by virtue of their mere posting) that we are granted a license to copy, distribute the content , etc. --otherwise we couldn't even show the contribution on the site. I've reworded some sections of the Terms of Use so that the points you raised are hopefully more clear: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16SNasomozyvBosnv6K5Ufe2_3-3cyrlw0m6fDtRc... It'd be great if you (and others) can take a look and report back. Best, Joaquín M López Muñoz
El 02/07/2024 a las 20:10, Joaquin M López Muñoz escribió:
Anyway, the message is a bit hostile and I've toned it down a bit following the example of usingstdcpp.org (see below).
Erratum: I meant https://isocpp.org/ Joaquin M Lopez Munoz
Joaquin Lopez Munoz wrote:
El 18/06/2024 a las 15:23, Phil Endecott via Boost escribi?:
[...]
I continue to find the "terms of use" page problematic. If you want to have a "legally binding agreement" between you and casual site visitors, then at the very least that needs to be a full-screen popup that everyone has to see and click "agree" on before they can view the site. Content in a link at the bottom of the page that the user hasn't clicked on cannot possibly establish a contract.
Hi Phil, thanks for your feedback, this is a discussion of the points you raised:
Legally binding agreement
As a matter of fact, using a service implies abiding by its terms of use via the so-called "implicit consent" provision.
"As a matter of fact", even in the US the enforceability of terms and conditions presented in a link in a webpage footer has been problematic for many years. For an interesting (humorous) recent Californian example, see Weeks v. Interactive Life Forms: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B323430.PDF For a much older story that I think summarises the position well, see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/10/how-zappos-user-agreemen... Quote: "Thus, the only websites that can't easily implement a clickthrough agreement are sites that have no checkout or registration processes. Websites in that category should carefully consider why they need a user agreement at all."
For its own protection and that of other users, any service provider must be able to deny (or at least prohibit) access to malicious users (like, for instance, those posting illegal content)
By definition, it's already illegal to post illegal content. Websites don't need additional terms of use to prohibit what's already illegal. Neither of us are lawyers, and I'm not going to spend time discussing this in any more detail. Regards, Phil.
On 03.07.24 15:52, Phil Endecott via Boost wrote:
Joaquin Lopez Munoz wrote:
For its own protection and that of other users, any service provider must be able to deny (or at least prohibit) access to malicious users (like, for instance, those posting illegal content)
By definition, it's already illegal to post illegal content. Websites don't need additional terms of use to prohibit what's already illegal.
Furthermore, having terms of use is actually counterproductive for blocking users/content. In the absence of a contract the website owner can block whoever they want, for any reason whatsoever, at any time. In the presence of a terms-of-use contract, the user is legally entitled to use the website under those terms, and can sue if unfairly blocked. -- Rainer Deyke (rainerd@eldwood.com)
participants (5)
-
Ion Gaztañaga -
Joaquin M López Muñoz -
Phil Endecott -
Rainer Deyke -
Vinnie Falco