On 07/05/2016 03:08 AM, Walter Bright via dmd-internals wrote: > > > On 6/30/2016 4:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: >> >>> On 30 Jun 2016, at 00:15, Walter Bright via dmd-internals >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I thought all Boost required was leaving the notice intact. >> >> It requires attribution for distribution source code, but not binary >> code. But that does not make much sense for a document. > > Since a lot of our docs are generated from source code, I think it would > be confusing to mix Boost licenses in with CC licenses.
There is nothing confusing. CC0 is a special license crafted to emulate public domain concept as close as possible in jurisdictions that don't have the notion of public domain. It can be considered a functional equivalent of public domain and as such is even more permissive than Boost. I decided to not use Boost to avoid shady questions regarding mandatory attribution when i.e. quoting the DIP text / code snippet in newsgroup post.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
