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?
The Boost statement appears to me to be 1 a definitive claim of copyright, 2 and a definitive disclosure providing a bar to any attempts to patent. But a legal view would be useful. Are companies worried that someone will pop up and claim enfringement of copyright and/or patent, and demand money (perhaps with menaces!)? If this is correct, then I believe Boost _should_ require the license statement to reduce the risk, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Paul Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB UK +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 Kevin S. Van Horn > 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 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 Boost library submissions will be rejected if they are simply placed > into the public domain, wholly unrestricted. I can't think of any good > reason for such a policy. > > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
