Boost.Text is looking for a (mini-)review manager

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Boost.Text is looking for a (mini-)review manager

Boost - Dev mailing list
I've made all the recommended changes to Boost.Text that came up in
the review.  Glen, the previous review manager, recommended a mini
review of Boost.Text once I'd made those changes.

If you'd like to manage the mini-review, please let me know.

For everyone, including potential reviewers and review managers, here
are the major changes:

* All the specific review feedback issues have been addressed.
* The string layer is now gone.
* The text layer got a major re-work.  It is now a set of
template-based adaptors
(basic_text<>, vs. a text typedef. etc.), which lets everyone get what
they want.  You can change the underlying storage type (including
whatever allocator you prefer), select UTF-8 or UTF-16, and change the
normalization form. Glen recommended I drop this layer, but the
library is way less useful without this stuff, and these changes
address all the concerns raised about the text layer  in the review.

The updated docs can be found here:

https://tzlaine.github.io/text/doc/html/index.html

Oh yeah, and I added concept constraints to the whole library when you
build in C++20 mode.

Zach

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text is looking for a (mini-)review manager

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 01:05, Zach Laine via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I've made all the recommended changes to Boost.Text that came up in
> the review.  Glen, the previous review manager, recommended a mini
> review of Boost.Text once I'd made those changes.

The Mini-Review is usually conducted by the same review manager [1].
Would it be possible?

[1] https://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Maintainer

Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text is looking for a (mini-)review manager

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sunday, August 23, 2020, Mateusz Loskot via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 01:05, Zach Laine via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I've made all the recommended changes to Boost.Text that came up in
> > the review.  Glen, the previous review manager, recommended a mini
> > review of Boost.Text once I'd made those changes.
>
> The Mini-Review is usually conducted by the same review manager [1].
> Would it be possible?
>
>
Zach already asked me, but I am unavailable at the moment. :-)

Glen

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text is looking for a (mini-)review manager

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 14:57, Glen Fernandes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sunday, August 23, 2020, Mateusz Loskot via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 01:05, Zach Laine via Boost
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I've made all the recommended changes to Boost.Text that came up in
>> > the review.  Glen, the previous review manager, recommended a mini
>> > review of Boost.Text once I'd made those changes.
>>
>> The Mini-Review is usually conducted by the same review manager [1].
>> Would it be possible?
>>
>
> Zach already asked me, but I am unavailable at the moment. :-)

Okay.

I added the Text mini-review to the schedule,
with the call for a review manager.

Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text is looking for a (mini-)review manager

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Hi Zach,

Zach Laine wrote:
> I've made all the recommended changes to Boost.Text that came up in
> the review.

> * All the specific review feedback issues have been addressed.
> * The string layer is now gone.
> * The text layer got a major re-work.

Could you please explain what you've done about the copyright issues?

As far as I can tell, you still depend on the Unicode data files that
have a Boost-incompatible licence.  You previously included this
Unicode copyright text in the documentation but that page has now been
removed, if I'm looking in the right place.

Is this the correct URL for the new version:
https://github.com/tzlaine/text/


Regards, Phil.





_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text is looking for a (mini-)review manager

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Phil Endecott via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Zach,
>
> Zach Laine wrote:
> > I've made all the recommended changes to Boost.Text that came up in
> > the review.
>
> > * All the specific review feedback issues have been addressed.
> > * The string layer is now gone.
> > * The text layer got a major re-work.
>
> Could you please explain what you've done about the copyright issues?

Sure.  I've reimplemented the code that originally came from ICU, and ...

> As far as I can tell, you still depend on the Unicode data files that
> have a Boost-incompatible licence.  You previously included this
> Unicode copyright text in the documentation but that page has now been
> removed, if I'm looking in the right place.

... removed the ICU copyright from these files.  They are the output
of a code generation tool, and so are not copyrightable individually
(like the output of lex and yacc).

> Is this the correct URL for the new version:
> https://github.com/tzlaine/text/

Yes, that's it.

Zach

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
Zach Laine wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Phil Endecott via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Could you please explain what you've done about the copyright issues?
>
> Sure.  I've reimplemented the code that originally came from ICU, and ...
>
>> As far as I can tell, you still depend on the Unicode data files that
>> have a Boost-incompatible licence.  You previously included this
>> Unicode copyright text in the documentation but that page has now been
>> removed, if I'm looking in the right place.
>
> ... removed the ICU copyright from these files. They are the output of
> a code generation tool, and so are not copyrightable individually (like
> the output of lex and yacc).

For the benefit of everyone else let me describe what Zach does:

1. There are some files at unicode.org that have a Boost-incompatible
licence.

2. Zach has some Python scripts at https://github.com/tzlaine/text/tree/master/scripts

3. The scripts download the files from unicode.org, convert them into C++
source files, and prefix the result "(C) Zach Laine Boost License".

4. These generated files are checked in at https://github.com/tzlaine/text/tree/master/include/boost/text/data
The intention is not that end-users of Boost.Text will run the scripts,
but rather that the generated files will be included in the Boost source
distribution.

Zach thinks this is OK because "they are the output of a code
generation tool, and so are not copyrightable individually (like
the output of lex and yacc)".

I think that's completely wrong. I believe it's a well-established
principle of software copyright law that the output of a tool -
whether that is g++, bison, or rot13 - is a derived work of the
input to that tool.  You cannot (without permission) take example.y
that's (C) Megacorp, run bison on it, and claim that the resulting
example.tab.c is now (C) Someone Else.

This worries me.  We really, really don't want to be shipping code
that has copyright violations!

Glen, in your review result announcement you said you were confident
that Zach would be able to resolve the copyright problems.  What did
you have in mind when you wrote that?


Regards, Phil.





_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
Phil Endecott wrote:
...
> 4. These generated files are checked in at
> https://github.com/tzlaine/text/tree/master/include/boost/text/data

https://github.com/tzlaine/text/tree/master/include/boost/text/detail 
surely?

> I believe it's a well-established principle of software copyright law that
> the output of a tool - whether that is g++, bison, or rot13 - is a derived
> work of the input to that tool.

Kind of. It depends on whether the tool extracts copyrightable elements from
the source.

Either way, if we go with the strict interpretation and decide that

{0x0028, 0x0029, bidi_bracket_type::open},
{0x0029, 0x0028, bidi_bracket_type::close},
{0x005B, 0x005D, bidi_bracket_type::open},
{0x005D, 0x005B, bidi_bracket_type::close},
{0x007B, 0x007D, bidi_bracket_type::open},
{0x007D, 0x007B, bidi_bracket_type::close},

is a derived work of a Unicode data file, I see no way of ever having a
Unicode library in Boost.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
Peter Dimov via Boost said:     (by the date of Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:10:48 +0300)

> Either way, if we go with the strict interpretation and decide that
>
> {0x0028, 0x0029, bidi_bracket_type::open},
> {0x0029, 0x0028, bidi_bracket_type::close},
> {0x005B, 0x005D, bidi_bracket_type::open},
> {0x005D, 0x005B, bidi_bracket_type::close},
> {0x007B, 0x007D, bidi_bracket_type::open},
> {0x007D, 0x007B, bidi_bracket_type::close},
>
> is a derived work of a Unicode data file, I see no way of ever having a
> Unicode library in Boost.

There are debian packages available which support UTF-8 encoding,
conversion etc. Debian has rather strict license requirements. These
packages wouldn't be possible if the code numbers of UTF code glyphs
weren't publicly accessible.

Also there are many online UTF-8 databases.

--
# Janek Kozicki                              http://janek.kozicki.pl/

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:30 AM Phil Endecott via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Glen, in your review result announcement you said you were confident
> that Zach would be able to resolve the copyright problems.  What did
> you have in mind when you wrote that?

That the next submission of Text (and thus  the content of
boostorg/text if accepted) contains nothing that isn't licensed under
the BSL.  The mechanics of achieving this are fortunately not up to
me, but the desired outcome is something that should hold up to
scrutiny in the next Boost review.

> This worries me.  We really, really don't want to be shipping code
> that has copyright violations!

We do not, of course. (And we need to address any such cases in
existing libraries that are shipping with the Boost distribution).

Glen

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 2020-08-24 16:29, Phil Endecott via Boost wrote:

> Zach Laine wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Phil Endecott via Boost
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Could you please explain what you've done about the copyright issues?
>>
>> Sure.  I've reimplemented the code that originally came from ICU, and ...
>>
>>> As far as I can tell, you still depend on the Unicode data files that
>>> have a Boost-incompatible licence.  You previously included this
>>> Unicode copyright text in the documentation but that page has now been
>>> removed, if I'm looking in the right place.
>>
>> ... removed the ICU copyright from these files. They are the output of
>> a code generation tool, and so are not copyrightable individually
>> (like the output of lex and yacc).
>
> For the benefit of everyone else let me describe what Zach does:
>
> 1. There are some files at unicode.org that have a Boost-incompatible
> licence.

I believe, these are the terms of use published by Unicode Inc.:

http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html
https://www.unicode.org/license.html

I'll cite the relevant paragraph from the latter document:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of the Unicode data files and any associated documentation
(the "Data Files") or Unicode software and any associated documentation
(the "Software") to deal in the Data Files or Software
without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of
the Data Files or Software, and to permit persons to whom the Data Files
or Software are furnished to do so, provided that either
(a) this copyright and permission notice appear with all copies
of the Data Files or Software, or
(b) this copyright and permission notice appear in associated
Documentation.

I'm not a lawyer, but is doesn't seem to contradict our license
requirements:

https://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#License

In particular:

- It grants permission to copy, use and distribute free of charge and
commercially.
- It requires the license to appear in the docs or the source code of
the data (which, I believe, is in textual form).
- It does *not* require the license to appear in the compiled binaries,
which may contain the data in binary form.

Am I missing some aspect where the license is incompatible with Boost
requirements?

> 2. Zach has some Python scripts at
> https://github.com/tzlaine/text/tree/master/scripts
>
> 3. The scripts download the files from unicode.org, convert them into C++
> source files, and prefix the result "(C) Zach Laine Boost License".
>
> 4. These generated files are checked in at
> https://github.com/tzlaine/text/tree/master/include/boost/text/data
> The intention is not that end-users of Boost.Text will run the scripts,
> but rather that the generated files will be included in the Boost source
> distribution.
>
> Zach thinks this is OK because "they are the output of a code
> generation tool, and so are not copyrightable individually (like
> the output of lex and yacc)".
>
> I think that's completely wrong. I believe it's a well-established
> principle of software copyright law that the output of a tool -
> whether that is g++, bison, or rot13 - is a derived work of the
> input to that tool.  You cannot (without permission) take example.y
> that's (C) Megacorp, run bison on it, and claim that the resulting
> example.tab.c is now (C) Someone Else.

Changing the copyright indeed does not look good. However, generally,
the terms of use of the source and compiled/translated forms can be
different, depending on the license.

> This worries me.  We really, really don't want to be shipping code
> that has copyright violations!

Agreed to this. I think, Boost needs to consult with a lawyer on this
matter.

Personally, I wouldn't like if Boost stopped being entirely covered by
the BSL. As I said earlier, this is an important property for Boost to
be acceptable in many environments.

However, if the Unicode Inc. terms of use don't contradict the BSL and
Boost License requirements (as determined by a lawyer) and there really
is no other way around it, I'd accept it as an exception for the sake of
a greater good of improving Unicode support in C++. Should it end up
this way, the licensing terms must be explained clearly in Boost.Text
docs, with proper copyright attribution. With a note that license
compatibility has been verified and confirmed by a lawyer.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 8:30 AM Phil Endecott via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Zach Laine wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Phil Endecott via Boost
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Could you please explain what you've done about the copyright issues?
> >
> > Sure.  I've reimplemented the code that originally came from ICU, and ...
> >
> >> As far as I can tell, you still depend on the Unicode data files that
> >> have a Boost-incompatible licence.  You previously included this
> >> Unicode copyright text in the documentation but that page has now been
> >> removed, if I'm looking in the right place.
> >
> > ... removed the ICU copyright from these files. They are the output of
> > a code generation tool, and so are not copyrightable individually (like
> > the output of lex and yacc).
>
> For the benefit of everyone else let me describe what Zach does:
>
> 1. There are some files at unicode.org that have a Boost-incompatible
> licence.
>
> 2. Zach has some Python scripts at https://github.com/tzlaine/text/tree/master/scripts
>
> 3. The scripts download the files from unicode.org, convert them into C++
> source files, and prefix the result "(C) Zach Laine Boost License".
>
> 4. These generated files are checked in at https://github.com/tzlaine/text/tree/master/include/boost/text/data
> The intention is not that end-users of Boost.Text will run the scripts,
> but rather that the generated files will be included in the Boost source
> distribution.
>
> Zach thinks this is OK because "they are the output of a code
> generation tool, and so are not copyrightable individually (like
> the output of lex and yacc)".
>
> I think that's completely wrong. I believe it's a well-established
> principle of software copyright law that the output of a tool -
> whether that is g++, bison, or rot13 - is a derived work of the
> input to that tool.  You cannot (without permission) take example.y
> that's (C) Megacorp, run bison on it, and claim that the resulting
> example.tab.c is now (C) Someone Else.
>
> This worries me.  We really, really don't want to be shipping code
> that has copyright violations!

Agreed, though I don't think this is one instance.  If this is a
copyright violation, we have been in violation for years and years
already.  Look in

boost/spirit/home/support/char_encoding/unicode/UnicodeData.txt
boost/spirit/home/support/char_encoding/unicode/DerivedCoreProperties.txt

and the other files in that directory.  Note that these are in the
header paths, not inside src/ or something.  DerivedCoreProperties.txt
even has the Unicode copyright still on it.  Moreover, the data in the
files in that directory is derived from the .txt files.  Even though
the .txt files appear to have been removed on November 19, we end up
with the same problem, to the extent it is a problem, that Phil raises
-- distribution of code derived from non-code .txt files.

Zach

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Andrey Semashev wrote:

> - It does *not* require the license to appear in the compiled binaries,
> which may contain the data in binary form.

It does. Without explicit permission (which the BSL contains for this very
reason), binaries are derived works as much as script-processed files are.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 2020-08-24 20:22, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>
>> - It does *not* require the license to appear in the compiled
>> binaries, which may contain the data in binary form.
>
> It does. Without explicit permission (which the BSL contains for this
> very reason), binaries are derived works as much as script-processed
> files are.

I thought "copies" means copies of the source code, doesn't it? There is
also a latch that the license can appear only in the docs, not the data
itself, whether in source or binary form. I guess, that's what the layer
has to clarify.

But if it indeed means binary form as well then, alas, no Unicode in Boost.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
Andrey Semashev wrote:

> But if it indeed means binary form as well then, alas, no Unicode in
> Boost.

It does, but I'm pretty sure the Unicode consortium isn't going to go after
us for this specific use (using the data files to generate code that is
necessary to implement the functionality specified in the standard.)


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 2020-08-24 21:24, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>
>> But if it indeed means binary form as well then, alas, no Unicode in
>> Boost.
>
> It does, but I'm pretty sure the Unicode consortium isn't going to go
> after us for this specific use (using the data files to generate code
> that is necessary to implement the functionality specified in the
> standard.)

It doesn't matter how likely it is. This isn't just about us, but also
about our users.

One other option would be to ask Unicode Inc. for a permission to use
Unicode data in binary form without the requirement to present the license.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:31 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 2020-08-24 21:24, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> > Andrey Semashev wrote:
> >
> >> But if it indeed means binary form as well then, alas, no Unicode in
> >> Boost.
> >
> > It does, but I'm pretty sure the Unicode consortium isn't going to go
> > after us for this specific use (using the data files to generate code
> > that is necessary to implement the functionality specified in the
> > standard.)
>
> It doesn't matter how likely it is. This isn't just about us, but also
> about our users.
>
> One other option would be to ask Unicode Inc. for a permission to use
> Unicode data in binary form without the requirement to present the license.

Why is this suddenly a problem if Boost.Spirit has been doing it for years?

Zach

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 2020-08-24 22:40, Zach Laine via Boost wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:31 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-08-24 21:24, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
>>> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>>
>>>> But if it indeed means binary form as well then, alas, no Unicode in
>>>> Boost.
>>>
>>> It does, but I'm pretty sure the Unicode consortium isn't going to go
>>> after us for this specific use (using the data files to generate code
>>> that is necessary to implement the functionality specified in the
>>> standard.)
>>
>> It doesn't matter how likely it is. This isn't just about us, but also
>> about our users.
>>
>> One other option would be to ask Unicode Inc. for a permission to use
>> Unicode data in binary form without the requirement to present the license.
>
> Why is this suddenly a problem if Boost.Spirit has been doing it for years?

Because apparently noone knew they were doing this. It may well become a
problem of Boost.Spirit now.

Personally, I'm still not sure there is a license incompatibility, until
a lawyer comments.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 22:40, Zach Laine via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > It doesn't matter how likely it is. This isn't just about us, but also
> > about our users.
> >
> > One other option would be to ask Unicode Inc. for a permission to use
> > Unicode data in binary form without the requirement to present the license.
>
> Why is this suddenly a problem if Boost.Spirit has been doing it for years?

IANAL and all that, but I don't think that argument works very well.
In the case of a hypothetical
copyright violation, I have never heard anything suggesting that the
length of a period of violation
somehow renders the copyright moot, nor is there any suggestion that
not coming after a violation
does so either.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Boost.Text Unicode licence issues

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:47 PM Ville Voutilainen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 22:40, Zach Laine via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > It doesn't matter how likely it is. This isn't just about us, but also
> > > about our users.
> > >
> > > One other option would be to ask Unicode Inc. for a permission to use
> > > Unicode data in binary form without the requirement to present the license.
> >
> > Why is this suddenly a problem if Boost.Spirit has been doing it for years?
>
> IANAL and all that, but I don't think that argument works very well.
> In the case of a hypothetical
> copyright violation, I have never heard anything suggesting that the
> length of a period of violation
> somehow renders the copyright moot, nor is there any suggestion that
> not coming after a violation
> does so either.

Sure, but that was not the point of my comment.  My my point is that
if we are concerned that Spirit's use of the Unicode Character
Database would cause difficulty for end-user license approval, or
potential lawsuits from Unicode (which I think is approximately 0%
likely), it probably would have come up already in the last 10 years
or so.

Zach

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
123