On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Beman Dawes wrote:
> Thanks to Dave Abrahams, Diane Cabell, Devin Smith, and Eva Chen, we now > have a pretty close to final draft of a new Boost Software License. > I am glad to hear that some folks have been working on this. These issues are quite important and might make any legal issues surrounding Boost easier, especially as it gains visibility and use. > This draft represents a lot of discussion between the lawyers and Boost > moderators, and both groups are quite happy with the results. So now it's > time to open it up for comments from the whole Boost community. In reading the license, I think the definition of "Software" needs to be broadened to explicitly include the documentation, test suites, etc. see: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php for an example. Additionally, the BSD license goes into even more detail with respect to software, binaries, etc. I feel that it's good to have a human-readable license, but it seems more pressing to ensure proper coverage of the legal issues, even if it means that the license gets a little longer. In this specific case where the license will (hopefully) cover much of Boost, I presume that it will be placed in the distribution and all files covered mentioned by reference. In that case, it seems fine to me for the license to be longer and more explicit. Again, much kudos to all who have been working on this. ron _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
