Dave,
> Nothing is legally bullet-proof. People should not have illusions
> about that.
I know, law is not an "exact science" and all that. What I meant is that
boosters should stand a *very low* chance of ever having legal problems as a
result of their (maybe flawed) work on the boost distribut
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:08:24 +0200, Daniel Frey wrote:
> To complete the implementation of combined_argument_type, it would help
After waking up this morning, I immediately realized that the
implementation will not do what it promised. I have a better
implementation right now which is about 80% f
Drazen DOTLIC wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Drazen,
> My company is using boost and we would very much like to use variant
> library immediately and not wait for the next official release of
> boost. Now, we know that this might not be sensible, but we are ready
> to take the risk. At the same time, we don't
[2003-06-25] David Abrahams wrote:
>Rene Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>
>> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
organization
>> obtaining a copy of the software covered by this license (the "Software")
>> to: use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, tra
At 03:25 PM 6/25/2003, Rene Rivera wrote:
>...
>>* Boosters for whom English isn't their primary language; is the license
>>understandable?
>
>Spanish is my first, but English is a very close second. The impression I
>got is that it's somewhat hard to parse as it is. I had to read the
second
>"p
At 09:39 PM 6/25/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>...
>
>> and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do
>> so,
>
>I prefer "and to permit others to do so". This phrase has just been
>approved by the lawyers as legally equivalent, and it's much easier to
>read, so I hope we'll u
At 01:50 PM 6/25/2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
>Beman Dawes wrote:
>[...]
>> * Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they
>> spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team?
>
>They seem to have missed a whole bunch of issues "surrounding" implied
>patent lice
At 06:22 PM 6/25/2003, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>Andreas Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>|| What about html files? Are they considered to be under
>|| the "the Software" umbrella? Html or any other form of
>|| electronic documentation can be seen as software but you
>|| could just as well argue t
At 03:43 PM 6/25/2003, Maciej Sobczak wrote:
>Well, I have a question.
>I understand that the text of this license is primarily intended to be
>used by Boost libraries and those that are candidates to be included in
>Boost.
>However, apart from the main Boost effort, some of the Boosters or just
>
At 03:17 PM 6/25/2003, Ronald Garcia wrote:
>...
>
>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.
I'll pass that on to the lawy
"Andreas Huber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Beman,
>
> Thanks for your work on this. Looks good to me. One minor thing:
>
>> No change from the current status. If your project does not
>> redistribute Boost source code, you don't have to redistribute the
>> license, regardless of how much non-Bo
Maciej Sobczak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's imagine the following situation (it can apply to any developer
> on this planet): I write some code and want it to get public. It is
> outside of mainstream Boost interest, so I do not intend to submit it
> to Boost.
>
> Being concerned with the l
At 06:31 PM 6/25/2003, Matt Hurd wrote:
>>The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive license
>>right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission must
>>still be included according to the draft license.
>>This would lead to a license text like:
>
>
>I am a little
Rene Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [2003-06-25] Beman Dawes wrote:
>
>>For more background, including rationale, a FAQ, and acknowledgements, see
>>http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/license-background.html
>
> Nice.
>
>>* Boosters for whom English isn't their primary language; is the licen
Glen Knowles wrote:
_ptr has a very specific meaning in CORBA as well, you must explicitly
manage the deletion of the object yourself, like, well... a pointer. If
you must use the CORBA namings this, at my first look, seems closer to
_var then _ptr. At which point I also think _ref is a better
Title: RE: [boost] API Review request: XML API for C++, second round
From: Stefan Seefeld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Daryle Walker wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 8:12 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>>> As the wrapper objects have reference semantics, I append '_ptr' to
Daryle Walker wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 8:12 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
[SNIP]
As the wrapper objects have reference semantics, I append '_ptr' to
their name to stress that fact. A practical side-effect of this is
[TRUNCATE]
Shouldn't the type names use a suffix of "_ref" instead? (I
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 8:12 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
[SNIP]
As the wrapper objects have reference semantics, I append '_ptr' to
their name to stress that fact. A practical side-effect of this is
[TRUNCATE]
Shouldn't the type names use a suffix of "_ref" instead? (I don't need
to know th
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:38:46 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote
> At 09:02 AM 6/24/2003, Jeff Garland wrote:
>
> >... I wonder if we should consider releasing 1.30.1 ...
>
> The Variant Library has been added, so it would be 1.31.0. And, yes,
> I think we should start talking about a schedule.
I was thi
Inspired by an article at the CUJ from Andrei Alexandrescu, I was
finally able to come up with a compose_f_gxy_hxy-adapter. I think that
it's the missing adapter to make compose.hpp complete. In the companies
production code, I needed it and used a much easier implementation with
some limitations,
>Matt Hurd wrote:
>>
>> >The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive
license
>> >right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission
must
>> >still be included according to the draft license.
>> >This would lead to a license text like:
>>
>>
>> I am a little confuse
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Software can be purely data, right? The documentation
> IMO, should be part of "the Software".
I would agree but do lawyers think this way too? Is there a
generally-accepted definition of what software is?
Maybe I'm being pedantic ;-)
Regards,
Andreas
_
Matt Hurd wrote:
>
> >The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive license
> >right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission must
> >still be included according to the draft license.
> >This would lead to a license text like:
>
>
> I am a little confused. Li
At 09:02 AM 6/24/2003, Jeff Garland wrote:
>... I wonder if we should consider releasing 1.30.1 ...
The Variant Library has been added, so it would be 1.31.0. And, yes, I
think we should start talking about a schedule.
--Beman
___
Unsubscribe & other
>The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive license
>right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission must
>still be included according to the draft license.
>This would lead to a license text like:
I am a little confused. Like Jaarko, I read it as viral.
If
Andreas Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|| What about html files? Are they considered to be under
|| the "the Software" umbrella? Html or any other form of
|| electronic documentation can be seen as software but you
|| could just as well argue that it's only data (which
|| AFAICT would not fall u
Hi Beman & others,
One thing is slightly confusing. The second paragraph says:
The copyright notice in the Software and this entire statement,
_including the above license grant_,
this restriction and the following disclaimer, must be included ...
The author of a derivative work can put
Beman,
Thanks for your work on this. Looks good to me. One minor thing:
> No change from the current status. If your project does not
> redistribute Boost source code, you don't have to redistribute the
> license, regardless
> of how much non-Boost source code is redistributed.
>
> Hope that help
Hi Bohdan,
even though you may think of a dom tree as 'just another tree', there is
really quite a bit of domain-specific semantics associated with it
that makes it impractical to use a general-purpose tree/graph library
as the underlying representation.
To get an idea of what these xml-specific f
I would like to see if there is interest in incorporating the FC++
library into Boost.
FC++ is a library for functional programming. In FC++ we program with
"functoids" (classes which define operator() and obey certain other
conventions). The library features include:
- higher order, polymorp
Hi,
Some time ago there was tree-container proposal and if i don't mind there is one
in files section or in sandbox. During this discussion someone mentioned that
same interface can be used for xml document ...
Just curious if it is good idea ? Or it is unusable for heterogenous xml
(libxml2)
obje
[2003-06-25] Rene Rivera wrote:
>must be included, in whole or in part, in all copies of the Software, and
>all derivative works of the Software.
Oops, that should be: "...must me included in all... of the Software, in
whole or in part.
It just goes to show how hard it can be to understand this
> My preference is for there to be a single license file in the
> boost root
> directory, and each file covered include a link. So a source
> code file
> might contain something like:
>
> // (C) Jane Programmer, 2003
> //
> // See www.boost.org/license for license terms and conditions
> //
>
> My preference is for there to be a single license file in the
> boost root
> directory, and each file covered include a link. So a source
> code file
> might contain something like:
>
> // (C) Jane Programmer, 2003
> //
> // See www.boost.org/license for license terms and conditions
> //
At 01:10 PM 6/25/2003, Daniel Frey wrote:
>...
>
>I read the FAQ but I still have a question about the "machine-executable
>object code generated by a source language processor". The Software we
>sell and distribute contains config files in XML, HTML files,
>documentation in various formats and ot
Hamish Mackenzie wrote:
Why should the node-wrappers keep the document alive?
for consistency, and convenience. In the same way you can get down from
the document to the individual nodes you can get up: node.parent() and
node.document() provide the means to walk up towards the document root.
node.
Hi,
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.
The draft license itself is at
http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/LICENSE.txt
Wow!
While we are interested in comments from any Boo
[2003-06-25] Beman Dawes wrote:
>For more background, including rationale, a FAQ, and acknowledgements, see
>http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/license-background.html
Nice.
>* Boosters for whom English isn't their primary language; is the license
>understandable?
Spanish is my first, but Engl
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
At 01:27 PM 6/25/2003, Paul Mensonides wrote:
>> * Boost developers; if there are aspects of the license that make you
>> hesitate about adopting it, what are the issues?
>
>It looks fine to me Beman. Is this license (once it is completely
>ironed out) supposed to go in each file?
The license is
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> > Peter Dimov wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, please note that I don't mind the _developer summary_ being
> >> "aggressive" in its pass/fail reports. There are no "expected
> >> failures" there as far as I'm concerned. Every failure needs to be
> >> reported in
Peter Dimov wrote:
>>> Beman's approach, where unexpected failures were automatically
>>> determined by comparing the current run with aprevious run, seems to
>>> cope better with this scenario, and requires no manual input.
>>
>> Does it? What if the previous run was a total failure - what the
Beman Dawes wrote:
[...]
> * Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they
> spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team?
They seem to have missed a whole bunch of issues "surrounding" implied
patent license.
regards,
alexander.
_
> * Boost developers; if there are aspects of the license that make you
> hesitate about adopting it, what are the issues?
It looks fine to me Beman. Is this license (once it is completely
ironed out) supposed to go in each file? If so, where do you put the
credentials for who created what? Or
Beman Dawes wrote:
> Intel's 7.1 upgrade doesn't bump their release macro! It is still
> reporting 700.
>
> I tried to update to use Intel 7.1 with VC++ 7.1, but am getting
> strange results. The IDE integration doesn't seem to provide a way to
> switch to the Intel compiler. Boost tests are getti
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.
For as many Boost libraries as possible, the plan is to replace the
individual licenses with the "official" Boost license. Of course, th
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.
For as many Boost libraries as possible, the plan is to replace the
individual licenses with the "official" Boost license. Of course, the
developers who h
Hi,
My company is using boost and we would very much like to use variant
library immediately and not wait for the next official release of boost.
Now, we know that this might not be sensible, but we are ready to take
the risk. At the same time, we don't want to break anything else in the
boost (an
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> The thread library as of boost 1.30 does provide a struct xtime, which
> is similar to timeval, except that xtime represents a time, while
> timeval represents a time duration. The documentation for the thread
> library suggests, however, that xtime is intended a
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 01:12, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> hi there,
>
> some weeks ago I proposed an API for XML, which triggered an interesting
> discussion. Hamish Mackenzie proposed a somewhat simpler mechanism to attach
> the C++ wrapper objects to the C structs from libxml2.
>
> I reworked the AP
> Well, we didn't do anything special to mis-configure it ;), besides
> choosing MSVC 6 compatibility mode (during the setup, as opposite to
> MSVC 7.0 one). Any ideas what's the right way to fix that?
The problem is that there is no way for the config system to tell how your
Intel compiler is set
I am now confident that I understand what you are proposing.
It certainly seems "The Right Thing To Do" (tm)
but is more complicated for me to calculate, though not too bad.
I would welcome confirmation from other potential users that they agree.
Paul
PS Of course the problem of macro, function
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Paul A Bristow wrote:
> | Consequently, more than one constant out of 1 may suffer
> | from this problem. So it is rare, but it is not impossible.
> | It's why I was suggesting that a library should provide a
> | mean to know if a number representing a constant is the
Hello Boosters!
Currently we are still using boost version 1.29.0, but would like to
use a newer version. You all know that such a transfer means work
on large projects, so I would like to ask, whether anyone knows, when
possibly boost 1.31 is going to be published?
If this point of time is not so
54 matches
Mail list logo
