Re: Amulet toolkit again
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Graham C. Hughes wrote:
> I've started packaging the toolkit, and while I was looking through the
> docs I discovered this formal legalese stuff. I don't speak lawyer, nor
> do I know enough about the licenses Debian willingly puts up with to say
> whether this is OK or not.
>
> So is this tolerable?
>
> -- starts --
> 1. This License Agreement, effective as of April 1, 1996, is between:
> Carnegie Mellon University having a principal place of business at
> 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 (``CMU''); and a company
> (``COMPANY'').
[remainder deleted]
My US$0.02 worth, as a layman: The most troublesome part would seem to me
to be the designation of "a company" as a party to the agreement. I don't
know whether a non-profit organization (i.e. SPI) would qualify or not.
Other than that, it looks like a green light as far as redistribution
goes.
If in doubt, you could always just ask CMU. :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Gilbert | "If all the nations in the | The original
Seattle, WA, USA | world are in debt, where did | Self-Indulgent Home Page!
irving@pobox.com | all the money go?" | http://pobox.com/~irving/
| -- Steven Wright |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: