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 says it is in the public domain. > > The lawyers that I have talked to view a file as poison if it > isn't covered by someone's explicit copyright and license. In > other words, a file silent about copyright and license is seen as > a time bomb, waiting to explode. (Of course the license doesn't > have to be in the source code, as long as it is clear what license > applies to the source code. IIRC, the copyright should actually > be in the source code.)" > >In other words, though a license on public-domain work may have no >legal standing, it is of practical importance to be able to associate >each file with its legal status, so a notice which says "this file is >in the public domain" is useful.
That's correct. --Beman _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
