Ed Brey wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>>
>> I'd like also to point out that it seems to me that the old "in all
>> copies" form is better than the new one; the legal system is
>> sufficiently flexible
>> to reliably recognize a "copy" (i.e. a password protected RAR archive
>> of an mp3 encoded song).
Peter Dimov wrote:
>
> I'd like also to point out that it seems to me that the old "in all
> copies" form is better than the new one; the legal system is
> sufficiently flexible
> to reliably recognize a "copy" (i.e. a password protected RAR archive
> of an mp3 encoded song). The new wording seem
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
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
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
