Yitzhak Sapir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
D> A while ago there was a call for license reviews. Various licenses were
> listed at:
>
> http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License
>
> for review. The STLPort license, which is available at:
>
> http://www.stlpor
A while ago there was a call for license reviews. Various licenses were
listed at:
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License
for review. The STLPort license, which is available at:
http://www.stlport.org/doc/license.html
was not listed (or at least does
At 06:30 PM 12/3/2002, Sean Parent wrote:
>on 12/3/02 1:44 PM, Terje Slettebø at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Is Adobe asking for more from a non-profit community like Boost, than they
>> are willing to give themselves, for software they sell? This license is for
>> the free Acrobat Reader, but I
on 12/3/02 1:44 PM, Terje Slettebø at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is Adobe asking for more from a non-profit community like Boost, than they
> are willing to give themselves, for software they sell? This license is for
> the free Acrobat Reader, but I doubt the commercial versions are much
> differ
Another important point is that Boost is a source library, so that the users
aren't dependent on the Boost commonity, if something needs fixing, unlike
if it was binary components. Anybody could in theory support it, and there
are companies, such as Dave Abrahams et al's Boost Consulting, who offer
>From: "Sean Parent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> 5. Disclaimers such as "AS IS" are strongly discouraged - they are
> >> viewed as a statement that the file may or may not contain other
> >> copyrighted or patented work. Disclaimers weaken the copyrights
> >> granted. 90% of the time this is where I
Sorry for taking so long to respond - I wanted to make sure I met with legal
first so I was giving good information (and correcting some information I've
already given):
on 11/26/02 8:48 AM, David Abrahams at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sean Parent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 2. That the term
At 11:26 AM 11/26/2002, David Abrahams wrote:
>IIUC, what Beman meant when he said "what was being requested" did not
>refer to this particular case. He was referring to his own earlier
>statement that:
>
>"Even something in the public domain should have a copyright, and a
>license that sa
Does the "as is" really add anything that the sentence doesn't already state?
"This software is provided without express or implied warranty,
and with no claim as to its suitability for any purpose."
seems clear enough "as is"!
Paul
Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB
Sean Parent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2. That the terms of the license state clearly what the rights granted are
> with respect to:
>
> Reproduction
> Producing Derivative Works
> Perform Publicly
> Display Publicly
Sean,
Does the "usual Boost copyright notice" do this part already, or is i
Rene Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Attached is an updated version of the command. Filters more types of files
> out so it can be used in a CVS checkout tree, "dirtied" by compilation
> residue. Also outputs the number of files.
>
> Also attached is an updated list of files, currently at ~
Andrew Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Keith Gorlen,
>>> the author of the NIH (National Institutes of Health) class library,
>>> told me once that his work, being a ``US Government work'' is in the
>>> public domain and *cannot* be copyrighted or licensed. That is,
>>> *nothing* that anyo
IANAL
I thought a hyphen used as such meant ALL of the years... i.e. 2000, 2001,
and 2002 (it's what I was taught a few decades back when we were putting
copyright notices on software at a computer hardware manufacturer). We
were also taught that when multiple dates were going to be listed, you
At 12:57 AM 11/25/2002, Rene Rivera wrote:
>>> Thanks, Rene.
>
>You're welcome ;-) -- Perhaps those of us who are handy with scripts
could
>help you automate some of the release procedures?
That's one of the motivations for the filesystem library. By writing the
scripts in C++, every Boost pr
[2002-11-25] Chris Little wrote:
>on 11/25/02 2:13 PM, Paul A. Bristow at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> So should we use
>> "Copyright (c), 2002, A N Author"
Except for the commas, as they are grammatical sugar from the copyright law
perspective.
>> to cover as many countries/lawyers as possibl
>From: "Chris Little" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on 11/25/02 2:13 PM, Paul A. Bristow at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > So should we use
> > "Copyright (c), 2002, A N Author"
> >
> > to cover as many countries/lawyers as possible?
> >
> > But do we need to update the year for each release (perhaps twic
on 11/25/02 2:13 PM, Paul A. Bristow at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So should we use
> "Copyright (c), 2002, A N Author"
>
> to cover as many countries/lawyers as possible?
>
> But do we need to update the year for each release (perhaps twice a year?)?
>
> What significance does the year have?
>
K
+44 1539 561830 Mobile +44 7714 33 02 04
Mobile mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rene Rivera
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:16 AM
> To: Boost mailing list
>
Sean Parent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry to not jump back into this thread sooner - there is too much traffic
> on boost for me to keep track.
>
> I'm going to be spending my time in early December primarily focusing on
> boost licensing issues and have a IP lawyer within Adobe assisting me
Sorry to not jump back into this thread sooner - there is too much traffic
on boost for me to keep track.
I'm going to be spending my time in early December primarily focusing on
boost licensing issues and have a IP lawyer within Adobe assisting me.
I've been through this numerous times with piec
[2002-11-25] Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>Rene Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| Nice to know, but AFAIK "(C)" does have legal standing; but only if used
in
>| addition to "Copyright". And yes the command as previously posted checked
>| for "copyright" only :-)
>
>But of course if "Copyright"
Rene Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Nice to know, but AFAIK "(C)" does have legal standing; but only if used in
| addition to "Copyright". And yes the command as previously posted checked
| for "copyright" only :-)
But of course if "Copyright" is present, then "(C)" is utterly
redundant. It
[2002-11-24] Thomas Wenisch wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Just as a note to those scanning files for copyright messages, I was once
>informed by lawyers at one of my former employers that the string "(C)"
>(that is, a capital C in parenthesis) has no legal standing - only the
>word "copyright" or the copyright
Hi,
Just as a note to those scanning files for copyright messages, I was once
informed by lawyers at one of my former employers that the string "(C)"
(that is, a capital C in parenthesis) has no legal standing - only the
word "copyright" or the copyright symbol (not available in ASCII) legally
i
At 12:36 PM 11/19/2002, Rene Rivera wrote:
>I think you did a limited search... only in the headers. There are many
>more files without (C). For example most "Jamfile"s don't have one.
>
>Could you post how you did the search... perhaps this is something for
>Beman
>to add to the list of checks fo
From: Andrew Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> an issue here--that all FSF wanted was to be able to put the work
> under GPL (which would also be impossible for a public-domain work).
The exact public domain work can't be copyrighted, however for all
practical purposes that is meaningless. It can be
>> Keith Gorlen,
>> the author of the NIH (National Institutes of Health) class library,
>> told me once that his work, being a ``US Government work'' is in the
>> public domain and *cannot* be copyrighted or licensed. That is,
>> *nothing* that anyone does with his work can legally prevent anyone
15 AM
> To: Boost mailing list; Boost mailing list
> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost License Issues
>
>
> At 09:38 AM 11/19/2002, Andrew Koenig wrote:
>
> >Beman> Even something in the public domain should have a copyright, and a
> >Beman> license that says it is in
> From: Rene Rivera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I think you did a limited search... only in the headers.
> There are many more
> files without (C). For example most "Jamfile"s don't have one.
>
> Could you post how you did the search... perhaps this is
> something for Beman
> to add to the list
At 09:38 AM 11/19/2002, Andrew Koenig wrote:
>Beman> Even something in the public domain should have a copyright, and a
>Beman> license that says it is in the public domain.
>
>I think you should check this statement with a lawyer.
I'd really like a knowledgeable intellectual property lawyer to r
Beman Dawes writes:
> Even something in the public domain should have a copyright, and a
> license that says it is in the public domain.
Wrong. Something that is in the public domain is not copyrighted, and no
license is needed to use it. If you intend for other people to use
public-domain co
[2002-11-19] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> From: David Abrahams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >
>> > I've checked the sources, and there are about 50 files lacking
>> > copyright statements. If there are no objections, I'll update them
>> > as appropriate (using the statements in other files of the
Dave Steffen writes:
> > Are companies worried that someone will pop up and claim
> > enfringement of copyright and/or patent,
> > and demand money (perhaps with menaces!)?
>
> Yep. [...] We can't use _any_ outside code unless the licencing term
> _clearly_ allow us to do so without any IP entang
> Is a reason that failing to claim copyright at least
> may permit someone else to claim copyright
> and then for them to restrict use of the software?
No, if I put my own work into the public domain, another cannot then
copyright it. They may, however, derive a new work from mine and
copyrigh
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 09:35:49AM -0500, Andrew Koenig wrote:
> Joel> The author releases the software into the public domain. Ten
> Joel> seconds later boost copyrights the software and releases it
> Joel> under the Boost Public License...
>
> I believe that once something is in the public doma
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: David Abrahams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >
> > > I've checked the sources, and there are about 50 files lacking
> > > copyright statements. If there are no objections, I'll update them
> > > as appropriate (using the statements in other files of the library
>> That fact does not gainsay what I said earlier: It is not
>> possible to license public-domain material.
Joel> I think we are in agreement...it is meaningless or impossible to license
Joel> public-domain material...however, just the act of putting a license
Joel> notice in the public-material
> That fact does not gainsay what I said earlier: It is not
> possible to license public-domain material.
I think we are in agreement...it is meaningless or impossible to license
public-domain material...however, just the act of putting a license
notice in the public-material is enough to make it
Joel> Once something has been released into the public domain, then it
Joel> is free. I can use it to create a derivative work under my own
Joel> copyright. The derivative work can have very minimal changes
Joel> such as simple formatting. For examples look at any of the
Joel> republished classi
-0500
To: Boost mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: [boost] Boost License Issues
Joel> The author releases the software into the public domain. Ten
Joel> seconds later boost copyrights the software and releases it
Joel> under the Boost Public Licen
Beman> Even something in the public domain should have a copyright, and a
Beman> license that says it is in the public domain.
I think you should check this statement with a lawyer. Keith Gorlen,
the author of the NIH (National Institutes of Health) class library,
told me once that his work, bein
Joel> The author releases the software into the public domain. Ten
Joel> seconds later boost copyrights the software and releases it
Joel> under the Boost Public License...
I believe that once something is in the public domain, it can no
longer be copyrighted. Anyone who likes can attach any kin
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > I've checked the sources, and there are about 50 files lacking
> > copyright statements. If there are no objections, I'll update them
> > as appropriate (using the statements in other files of the library
> > in question).
>
> Could you pos
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> From: Dave Steffen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> [snip]
>> I've found several
>> files in Boost that were lacking copyright statements, because we
>> have to be so careful about this.
>
> I've checked the sources, and there are about 50 files lacking
> copyright state
> From: Dave Steffen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[snip]
> I've found several
> files in Boost that were lacking copyright statements, because we
> have to be so careful about this.
I've checked the sources, and there are about 50 files lacking copyright
statements. If there are no objections, I'l
At 09:58 AM 11/18/2002, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
>Since the issue of licenses has come up again, I'd like to ask a question
>about the license requirements. The third listed item is,
>
>"Must require that the license appear on all copies of the software
>source code."
I wrote that text origina
> Are companies worried that someone will pop up and claim
> enfringement of copyright and/or patent,
> and demand money (perhaps with menaces!)?
Yep.
We already have a bunch of really complex intellectual property
licencing issues, and have to be really careful about this stuff. We
can't
rn
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost License Issues
>
>
> Since the issue of licenses has come up again, I'd like to ask a question
> about the license requirements. The third listed item is,
>
> "Must
"Kevin S. Van Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:21:09 -0600 (CST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: [boost] Boost License Issues
Terje Slettebo writes:
> I guess that's the reason for requiring a license (including
> telling that it's public d
Terje Slettebo writes:
> I guess that's the reason for requiring a license (including
> telling that it's public domain) to be present in the sources, as they
> are otherwise protected by copyright.
But the current license requirements do not allow me to just place in my
code a notice that the c
>From: "Terje Slettebø" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > "Must require that the license appear on all copies of the software
> > > source code."
Come to think of it, after I sent the last posting, this is about _copies_
of the software, not the original. Well, in that case, I guess it would be
ok not to
>From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Kevin S. Van Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Since the issue of licenses has come up again, I'd like to ask a
question
> > about the license requirements. The third listed item is,
> >
> > "Must require that the license appear on all copies o
I feel the lawyers are making a mountain of a molehill here and that we should
take the opportunity to get some free legal advice from Jaap's company by
asking them to say just what is wrong with the current plain statement on all
(well almost all - but it could easily become all?)
Boost source cod
"Kevin S. Van Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since the issue of licenses has come up again, I'd like to ask a question
> about the license requirements. The third listed item is,
>
> "Must require that the license appear on all copies of the software
> source code."
>
> Is this a misprint?
Since the issue of licenses has come up again, I'd like to ask a question
about the license requirements. The third listed item is,
"Must require that the license appear on all copies of the software
source code."
Is this a misprint? Should "must" be "may"? As it stands, this implies
that B
On Sunday 17 November 2002 11:01 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
> Some questions I can ask of Boost library authors that I think will
> help:
>
> 1. If we come up with a core Boost license which complies with the
>current Boost guidelines, would you be willing to consider using it
>in order to e
"Jaap Suter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I've been a Boost user for a while, both in my pet-projects and at
> companies I worked for. However, for the first time I'm working at a
> company where we are not allowed to use Boost because of legal
> issues. I remember seeing some discussions
Hi,
I've been a Boost user for a while, both in my pet-projects and at companies
I worked for. However, for the first time I'm working at a company where we
are not allowed to use Boost because of legal issues. I remember seeing some
discussions about the Boost licenses, but I couldn't find any de
58 matches
Mail list logo
