"Iain K.Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David B. Held Sent: 26 November
>2002 21:26
>
>
> [snip]
>> Perhaps a special clause that the software does not infringe on any
>> known patents or copyrights, but comes with no other warranties? I
>> have no idea what the legal status of such claims are, however.
>>
>
> Thats not possoible imho. It may have expired now, but I remember
> IBM filed a patent (US) in the late 80's oe earlier 90's on Finite
> State Machines, The general form of FSM.
>
> Such a patent is clearly bogus and the defence of prior art would
> suceed. But I doubt that any boost author wishes to open themselves
> up to having to defend a patent writ.
My meeting with a technology lawyer at Harvard last week led me to
believe that boost authors are already opened up to having to defend
against a patent suit. We are responsible for our own actions. No
matter what we write down, if we violate copyright or patent
restrictions, we can be held liable.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
