David Abrahams wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sean Parent wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Dealing with copyright and patent issues in IP is all about risk management
> >> for a corporation and limiting their exposure. The deeper the corporate
> >> pockets the more conservative a stance the organization will tend to take.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> >>
> >> What Adobe looks for is that: ....
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > Public domain <http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1390498> aside,
> > you might want to take a look at:
> >
> > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php
> > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
>
> Why? Is there something about these licenses which warrants our
> attention more than the plethora of other open-source licenses
> floating about? We probably can't review all of them...
You probably can ADOPT one of them [with whatever changes you might
want/need to add] and require all contributors to accept it for each
and every contribution to boost. The "Common Public License Version
1.0" that was developed by the IBM's lawyers/etc. is probably a good
starting point. AFAICT/AFAIK [speaking for myself {NOT IBM} with
respect to the CPL}, it is: [just a few details... IANALBIPOOTN ;-)]
- Next version of the IBM Public License;
- Preferred license for the release of IBM code as open source;
- Modifications to be licensed back under the CPL to earlier
contributors of the code;
- All warranties are disclaimed (provided "AS IS");
- Binary forms of original and derived works can be combined
with non-CPL code and the result distributed under a non-CPL
license (including commercial);
- Explicit grant of patent license to contributors' contributions.
regards,
alexander.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
