>Paul A. Bristow said: > >> And: >> >> // (C) Jane Programmer, 2003 >> // See www.boost.org/license for license terms and conditions >> // See www.boost.org/libs/janes-lib for documentation >> >> Looks fine to me, though I prefer "Copyright" to (C)
Yes, I do too. The above was meant to be an example; the lawyers will help with the exact wording.
>It looks simple, but would it be legally binding? For instance, say I
>release my software with this Boost license today, using the above text
>(and assuming the links point to the license, of course). Now, a year
>from now something is found to be problematic with the license and the
>lawyers tweak it. I can see a case being made that existing projects
>could from that point on be changed to be covered by this new license, but
>previous releases would seem to have to be legally bound to the license as
>it existed then. The above links, however, will not refer to this older
>license, but to the newer license. This seems to make the above scheme a
>little legally shakey, no? I thought you had to physically include the
>license with distributions and have the individual file licenses refer to
>this distributed license?
Yes, those are all issues.
In non-Boost code, I've seen wording something like "See the attached license; if it is missing see www.foo.org/license." Maybe something like that is what will be recommended.
>That's obviously a question for the lawyers, as us laymen will only be >guessing ;). > >But it would be nice to just refer to the license instead of repeating it >in every single file.
They've already signed off on the concept of a single copy of the license. It is just the exact way to refer to it that hasn't been finalized.
--Beman
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
