Proposed change to license references
Given recent advice from Diane Cabell, director of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, I propose we change the way that boost source files refer to the bost license from: // Use, modification, and distribution is 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) to: // 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 earlier license reference, by referring explicitly to "use, modification, and distribution", legally excludes important issues like "display", which are covered by the license itself and are intended to apply to source files. I'm posting this now to give people a chance to come up with any other issues -- **with the license reference comment**, not the license itself -- that may need to be addressed before we make a change. If there are no new issues within a week or so, we'll make it official. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
A tiny typographic nitpick - Would it lie on the page more neatly as: // Copyright I M Booster 2002-2004. // 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) Paul Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com | -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of David Abrahams | Sent: 18 February 2004 20:22 | To: boost | Subject: [boost] Proposed change to license references |
"Paul A Bristow" <boost@hetp.u-net.com> writes:
A tiny typographic nitpick - Would it lie on the page more neatly as:
// Copyright I M Booster 2002-2004. // 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)
Maybe. I was not trying to suggest, nor do I think I'd want to mandate, any particular use of line breaks in the comment. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
At 01:54 PM 2/19/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
"Paul A Bristow" <boost@hetp.u-net.com> writes:
A tiny typographic nitpick - Would it lie on the page more neatly as:
// Copyright I M Booster 2002-2004. // 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)
Maybe. I was not trying to suggest, nor do I think I'd want to mandate, any particular use of line breaks in the comment.
I second that. While Paul's choice of line breaks was a bit prettier, that's the sort of thing we traditionally leave up to the developer. --Beman
"Beman Dawes" <bdawes@acm.org> wrote in message news:4.3.2.7.2.20040219145425.031c90a0@mailhost.esva.net...
At 01:54 PM 2/19/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
"Paul A Bristow" <boost@hetp.u-net.com> writes:
A tiny typographic nitpick - Would it lie on the page more neatly as:
// Copyright I M Booster 2002-2004. // 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)
Maybe. I was not trying to suggest, nor do I think I'd want to mandate, any particular use of line breaks in the comment.
I second that. While Paul's choice of line breaks was a bit prettier, that's the sort of thing we traditionally leave up to the developer.
How about the copyright line? Should that always appear with the license notice? Dave --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 2/9/2004
"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> writes:
"Beman Dawes" <bdawes@acm.org> wrote in message news:4.3.2.7.2.20040219145425.031c90a0@mailhost.esva.net...
At 01:54 PM 2/19/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
"Paul A Bristow" <boost@hetp.u-net.com> writes:
A tiny typographic nitpick - Would it lie on the page more neatly as:
// Copyright I M Booster 2002-2004. // 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)
Maybe. I was not trying to suggest, nor do I think I'd want to mandate, any particular use of line breaks in the comment.
I second that. While Paul's choice of line breaks was a bit prettier, that's the sort of thing we traditionally leave up to the developer.
How about the copyright line? Should that always appear with the license notice?
I don't have an opinion. Any reason why not? What does "with" mean, anyway? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
At 03:26 AM 2/20/2004, David B. Held wrote:
"Beman Dawes" <bdawes@acm.org> wrote in message news:4.3.2.7.2.20040219145425.031c90a0@mailhost.esva.net...
At 01:54 PM 2/19/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
"Paul A Bristow" <boost@hetp.u-net.com> writes:
A tiny typographic nitpick - Would it lie on the page more neatly as:
// Copyright I M Booster 2002-2004. // 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)
Maybe. I was not trying to suggest, nor do I think I'd want to mandate, any particular use of line breaks in the comment.
I second that. While Paul's choice of line breaks was a bit prettier, that's the sort of thing we traditionally leave up to the developer.
How about the copyright line? Should that always appear with the license notice?
I'm having trouble envisioning a case where they shouldn't appear together. Do you have a specific situation in mind? --Beman
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Abrahams wrote: [...]
// Distributed under
"All rights reserved. This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the terms of <> which accompanies this distribution, and is available at <>."
It seems that we should replace the "license requirements" (now obsolete as we have the Boost License) with "license referer requirements" ;) -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey@aixigo.de, web: http://www.aixigo.de
Daniel Frey <daniel.frey@aixigo.de> writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Abrahams wrote: [...]
// Distributed under "All rights reserved. This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the terms of <> which accompanies this distribution, and is available at <>."
It seems that we should replace the "license requirements" (now obsolete as we have the Boost License) with "license referer requirements" ;)
License requirements aren't obsolete until all libraries are converted to use the Boost license. They let people know what they can count on from us. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
On 2/20/04 7:37 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote: [SNIP]
License requirements aren't obsolete until all libraries are converted to use the Boost license. They let people know what they can count on from us.
Once we figure out what new form the license/copyright statement should have, can we put it up and/or announce it somewhere? (I don't want to change the statement on my files to a moving target.) -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:22:12 -0500, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
[change reference comment] to:
// 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)
<snip>
I'm posting this now to give people a chance to come up with any other issues -- **with the license reference comment**, not the license itself -- that may need to be addressed before we make a change. If there are no new issues within a week or so, we'll make it official.
One thing occurred to me yesterday. Is that comment ok for files that are in the CVS repository? In a sense, they are not "distributed", just made available. What do you think? -- Genny.
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:22:12 -0500, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
[change reference comment] to:
// 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)
<snip>
I'm posting this now to give people a chance to come up with any other issues -- **with the license reference comment**, not the license itself -- that may need to be addressed before we make a change. If there are no new issues within a week or so, we'll make it official.
One thing occurred to me yesterday. Is that comment ok for files that are in the CVS repository? In a sense, they are not "distributed", just made available. What do you think?
The CVS server or webserver (CVSWeb) distributes them. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Given recent advice from Diane Cabell, director of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, I propose we change the way that boost source files refer to the bost license
from:
// Use, modification, and distribution is 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)
to:
// 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 earlier license reference, by referring explicitly to "use, modification, and distribution", legally excludes important issues like "display", which are covered by the license itself and are intended to apply to source files.
I'm posting this now to give people a chance to come up with any other issues -- **with the license reference comment**, not the license itself -- that may need to be addressed before we make a change. If there are no new issues within a week or so, we'll make it official.
OK, an entry has been added to the license FAQ. Changes should appear at http://boost-consulting.com/boost/more/license_info.html within the hour. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (8)
-
Alexander Terekhov -
Beman Dawes -
Daniel Frey -
Daryle Walker -
David Abrahams -
David B. Held -
Gennaro Prota -
Paul A Bristow