>I would think that since the Library Proposal of the interface is a >separate >document than the Boost implementation+docs of that interface they would >have different licenses. And therefore not present a problem when the >Library Proposal is accepted as then some sort of license transfer to the >standards organization would happen. > >But I guess Beman should bring that up with the lawyers also ;-)
Ha! You've never dealt with ISO, I guess. They are a world unto themselves and their views on copyrights are pretty high-handed.
At one time standards at least acknowledged all the people who contributed. But ISO doesn't even allow that nowadays, let alone acknowledging that a lot of what goes into a standard is closely related to if not downright derived from copyrighted works.
The point of the Boost license is to grant various permissions to everyday users. Special uses such as ISO standardization, or maybe some corporation that wants a different license, can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That's a nice aspect of the developer retaining copyright. The developer can cut a special deal if he or she wishes (but of course is under no obligation to do so).
--Beman
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
