Is this the canonical way to license a Boost library? // Copyright 20xx. I. M. Author // Use, modification, and distribution are subject to the Boost Software // License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or // copy at www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) If we don't want to include the actual license text in the library itself (nor does it seem desirable, when distributed with all of Boost), does it make more sense to abbreviate it to: // Copyright 20xx. I. M. Author // Use, modification, and distribution are subject to the Boost Software // License, Version 1.0. (See www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) And did we agree that "use, modification, and distribution" is sufficient, or do we need to mention something about display rights? Dave --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.683 / Virus Database: 445 - Release Date: 5/12/2004
David B. Held writes:
Is this the canonical way to license a Boost library?
// Copyright 20xx. I. M. Author // Use, modification, and distribution are subject to the Boost Software // License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or // copy at www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
Not anymore.
If we don't want to include the actual license text in the library itself (nor does it seem desirable, when distributed with all of Boost), does it make more sense to abbreviate it to:
// Copyright 20xx. I. M. Author // Use, modification, and distribution are subject to the Boost Software // License, Version 1.0. (See www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
And did we agree that "use, modification, and distribution" is sufficient, or do we need to mention something about display rights?
Please see http://tinyurl.com/2qpgg. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
| Not anymore. [snip] | Please see http://tinyurl.com/2qpgg. So the default is // 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) Would this be appropiate too: // Copyright 2004 Joe Coder. Distributed under the Boost // Software License, Version 1.0, provided this // copyright notice appears in all copies. (See accompanying file // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) ? br Thorsten
Thorsten Ottosen writes:
| Not anymore. [snip] | Please see http://tinyurl.com/2qpgg.
So the default is
// 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)
Yes.
Would this be appropiate too:
// Copyright 2004 Joe Coder. Distributed under the Boost // Software License, Version 1.0, provided this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// copyright notice appears in all copies. (See accompanying file ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ // LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
?
The highlighted wording is redundant; the licence itself already requires that. Citing the FAQ once more, "Having fixed language for referring to the license helps corporate legal departments evaluate the boost distribution. Creativity in license ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ reference language is strongly discouraged, but judicious changes in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ use of whitespace are fine." -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
"Aleksey Gurtovoy" <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> wrote in message news:00bd01c43e2a$52eed970$5b44a8c0@metacomm.com...
[...] Please see http://tinyurl.com/2qpgg.
Thanks. But does that mean each library should include a copy of the license text? And does that mean it should include a copy in each directory of the library, or in one central location? Or does that mean that it is assumed that the library will be distributed with Boost, and that a central Boost copy is sufficient? If each library ought to have one central copy, where is the most appropriate place for it? Dave --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.683 / Virus Database: 445 - Release Date: 5/12/2004
"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> writes:
"Aleksey Gurtovoy" <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> wrote in message news:00bd01c43e2a$52eed970$5b44a8c0@metacomm.com...
[...] Please see http://tinyurl.com/2qpgg.
Thanks. But does that mean each library should include a copy of the license text?
No, we have one copy in the Boost root directory.
And does that mean it should include a copy in each directory of the library, or in one central location? Or does that mean that it is assumed that the library will be distributed with Boost, and that a central Boost copy is sufficient?
Right. If you redistribute the library without the rest of Boost, you need to include a copy of the license somewhere. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
participants (4)
-
Aleksey Gurtovoy -
David Abrahams -
David B. Held -
Thorsten Ottosen