"Diane Cabell" <dcabell@law.harvard.edu> writes:

...

Thanks, that seems less prone to misinterpretation to me also. Would

// Copyright David Abrahams 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)

do just as well? It's just just a little less wordy -- "made available subject ot the terms of" sticks in my craw a bit.

Yes.

...

...

(....)

...

...

David Abrahams wrote:

(....)

Ugh I don't think we ever considered that "display" would be interpreted other than to mean "display publicly". Does that mean that in the license:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization obtaining a copy of the software and accompanying documentation covered by this license (the "Software") to use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software, and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so, all subject to the following:

"display" ought to be "display publicly"?

Yes. But again, private display doesn't require permission, so a court would likely interpret this to language to mean "public display." If it went to court, you'd get to testify as to that intention.

So IIUC, changing the license wording isn't critical. We should probably wait 'till a critical issue comes up before making any non-critical changes.

Yep.

Thanks again for all your help, Diane! -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com