> > I think the problem is that the entire clause can be viewed as disclaiming > > warranties against patent infringement/copyright violation/etc. The > > question is whether it is possible to protect both library authors and > > potential users. I don't see where else the buck can get passed. Perhaps > > a special clause that the software does not infringe on any known > > patents or copyrights, but comes with no other warranties? I have no idea > > what the legal status of such claims are, however. > > > > Dave > > In practice, Boost authors (and reviewers) will have made their best efforts to > ensure that they don't know of any patent infringement and/or copyright > violations. Perhaps we can say this without exposing the authors to too much > risk? (As David rightly observes, I am not worth suing!) > > But ultimately, the user must surely assess and take the risk. However, a > statement "not known to infringe copyright or patent" may help the user assess > the risk.
Hard to make any patent guarentees I think, as I'm sure the inventors of the .gif format would attest to. John Maddock http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
