copyright question (bjam examples)
Some of the examples in bjam v2 are actually taken verbatim from the QT libraries examples, and currently have no copyright or license declaration on them at all. Vladimir asks: "Will /* This file is part of Qt and is available under the Q Public License, available from http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/license.html */ be enough to make inspect tool happy. If we're really going to be extra-picky, I don't think I can add any "Copyright" string to the file I don't own." Is adding such a string acceptable? Clearly we need to do something, but what? Thanks, John.
"John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
Some of the examples in bjam v2 are actually taken verbatim from the QT libraries examples, and currently have no copyright or license declaration on them at all.
Vladimir asks:
"Will
/* This file is part of Qt and is available under the Q Public License, available from http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/license.html */
be enough to make inspect tool happy. If we're really going to be extra-picky, I don't think I can add any "Copyright" string to the file I don't own."
Is adding such a string acceptable? Clearly we need to do something, but what?
Given the analysis at http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License... I think it would be _much_ better if we could replace these files with homegrown equivalent, or have the BBv2 tests download the files automatically. Anything we have in the boost tree whose license doesn't make it "free for any use" is going to be a barrier to adoption. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
/* This file is part of Qt and is available under the Q Public License, available from http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/license.html */
Is adding such a string acceptable? Clearly we need to do something, but what?
Given the analysis at http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_Licens e/Qt_Public_License_-_QPL
I should not that all requirement which are failed by QPL mention "library". There's nothing about examples.
I think it would be _much_ better if we could replace these files with homegrown equivalent, or have the BBv2 tests download the files automatically.
Ok, I happened to have some small Qt program I wrote myself, so I've changed the example to be based on that program, and now it has my copyright.
Anything we have in the boost tree whose license doesn't make it "free for any use" is going to be a barrier to adoption.
I'm still curious. You say "barrier to adoption". How many users really think it's a barrier? Do they really that picky when it comes to files which are not parts of any library, and so are not linked with? - Volodya
Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> writes:
Anything we have in the boost tree whose license doesn't make it "free for any use" is going to be a barrier to adoption.
I'm still curious. You say "barrier to adoption". How many users really think it's a barrier? Do they really that picky when it comes to files which are not parts of any library, and so are not linked with?
Lawyers have to do the analysis; they don't know the difference between different bits of code, and don't always trust the company's engineers. Their job is to protect the company from liability. How do _they_ know you're not going to link with an example and try to ship it? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
At 06:07 AM 8/30/2004, John Maddock wrote:
Some of the examples in bjam v2 are actually taken verbatim from the QT libraries examples, and currently have no copyright or license declaration on them at all.
Vladimir asks:
"Will
/* This file is part of Qt and is available under the Q Public License, available from http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/license.html */
be enough to make inspect tool happy. If we're really going to be extra-picky, I don't think I can add any "Copyright" string to the file I don't own."
Is adding such a string acceptable? Clearly we need to do something, but
what?
I think Vladimir has the right idea; add a comment that indicates who does own the file, and where the license resides, and teach the inspect program to recognize that referral. You wouldn't be adding a copyright; just a reference to some external material that we have deemed an acceptable alternative to the Boost license and/or a explicit copyright message. --Beman
participants (4)
-
Beman Dawes -
David Abrahams -
John Maddock -
Vladimir Prus