On 15/09/2015 17:34, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
Paul A. Bristow
writes: Sorry but it ain't broke, so let's not fix it. Sorry, but it is. The copyright information you type in your source code starting to lie practically immediately you commit the code. No it doesn't - it reflects you the original authors were and when they authored those files. Only substantive changes need updates to the copyright info.
It does not hold the water in any format proceedings,
Really, how do you know? As you've been told already Boost took legal advice on this.
lying to reader, and annoying to maintain to author. It does not says what specifically one has a copyright to and is wrong practically everywhere in boost. What does these lines indicate:
// Copyright (c) Marshall Clow 2008-2012.
or these
// Copyright (c) 2002 Peter Dimov and Multi Media Ltd. // Copyright (c) 2008 Peter Dimov
or these
// Copyright Christopher Kormanyos 2002 - 2013. // Copyright 2011 -2013 John Maddock.
or these
// Copyright Beman Dawes, 2002-2005 // Copyright Vladimir Prus, 2002
These says nothing about who has the copyright to what, when it is expires, what happen after last year mentioned, does all source in the file was originated in first year mentioned and so on. I'm sorry that's just plain rubbish, those declaration are perfectly clear to me and also been explained in a previous post already.
I'm with Rene, it is what it is, get over it and move on frankly. Apologies for my bluntness, but IMO this thread really has gone on too long already, John.
Look at Google released HBase for example. And I can assure you Google has lots lots of lawyers. In other projects I see "Copyright xxxx <project> authors" disclaimer. Even this is unnecessary, IMO.
It is fine probably to keep the information in one place somewhere in documentation about who worked on the library, but it not a source of copyright anyway.
Gennadiy
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost .