From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-23 08:57:06
Rene Rivera wrote:
>> ... only contains a copyright notice, license is absent. No inspect
>> failures are reported for the date_time library. IIUC, inspect could
>> detect this problem by checking the presence & contents of the
>> <legalnotice> section in the boostbook xml.
>
> The inspect program checks the entire contents of the files. In this
> case the "Subject to the Boost Software License..." at the top is the
> license, so it's not absent. The visible license notice in this case
> <http://engineering.meta-comm.com/resources/cs-win32_metacomm/doc/html/date_time.html>
> comes from the top xml file
> <http://www.boost-consulting.com/boost/libs/date_time/xmldoc/date_time.xml>.
> So the problem isn't with the inspection program but with
> BoostBook+DocBook translation which does not include the license info
> throught the rest of the generated HTML files.
Right, the example I gave was a bad one. Sorry about that! However,
searching through all files under boost/tools/inspect for the string
"legalnotice" does not result in any matches. Looking at the code of
license_check.cpp it seems that inspect only checks whether a file
contains the regex boost[\\s\\W]+software[\\s\\W]+license. So my
question is: How does inspect check that boostbook generated docs
contain the necessary L & C?
- It seems it doesn't check the generated HTML (otherwise there would be
lots of failures for date_time)
- It seems it doesn't check the boostbook xml (otherwise it would be
looking for the legalnotice tag, wouldn't it?)
What am I missing?
Regards,
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.