"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams wrote: >> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> * Why is the new license better? >> >> I'll get the lawyers to comment on this in more detail, but here are >> some answers as I understand them: >> >> Big picture: it has been vetted by lawyers for reducing ambiguity >> and risk for corporate legal departments, while protecting Boost >> developers by disclaiming implicit guarantees. > > The underlying assumption being that making source available for download > free of charge leads to implicit guarantees. But I'm not sure that this is > the case. That's why I'm asking.
Oh, one other point: if we leave the question unaddressed there appears to be uncertainty. Corporate lawyers want to know just how much risk is being assumed by the company when using our code. If they read a disclaimer, they know quickly that they are assuming basically all of the risk. Otherwise, they are left with questions, which slows adoption. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
